Evolution Questions

[themusgrat]

jackschmittusa, you are not doing a lot to promote anything. That is a pretty stupid judgement to make of all of us.

1. RNA is not spontaneously generated, unless you mean "on-the-spot" by spontaneous. It never happens by itself.
2. How can the total entropy of the universe increase if all of these billions of mutations and selections are moving to order? It may be a good theory if you think about it for a second, but if you think about it for more than a second, it is not imaginable that a universe that is suposedly moving toward entropy can produce such ordered planets, solar systems, galexies, etc., laws. Did you ever think about where mathematics comes from? Oh, I see, these absolute laws come from a big explosion through random and beneficial genetic mutations... oops, no, maybe they just happened. Like I said before, for a scientific theory to be valid, it must be observable, and must be capable of being repeated. Will these laws of mathematics ever evolve?
3. Show me where genes have been created naturally. There are no examples, because whenever something exhibits a new characteristic, it is not a new gene, just a previously dormant gene.
4. Again, show me where natural selection chooses a mutated specimen. Remember, mutations are not inherited.

Meuge, I seem to remember you saying something about ID people ignoring what we can't explain.

 

[themusgrat]

Also, here are more problems with evolution.

1. The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

2. Population.
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10^89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. Unless we don't think that early humans enjoyed sex. It seems to me that the more primal you get, the more humans would act like animals, and the more children would happen.

3. There are examples of human artifacts misplaced in the geological column. Such as a hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock.

 

[conjur]

Keep it up, themusgrat...this is some great comic relief!


BTW, when you want to face reality, here are two great reads:

Seven Daughters of Eve: The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry - Bryan Sykes
http://educate.barnesandnoble.com/educa...search/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=0393323145

The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey - Spencer Wells
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookse...asp?z=y&bnit=H&pwb=1&ean=9780812971460

 

[themusgrat]

Thanks, conjur. Anytime. Have anything smart to add?

EDIT: Now I see the edit, nevermind.

 

[Kibbo86]

Themusgrat,

Your population growth theory is flawed:

The growth rate of a given population is a factor of both births and deaths. If the proportionate death rate was higher in the past (which it inarguably was) then assuming a constant rate of population growth is fallacious.

Dude, did you really personally think that that argument was valid?

 

[themusgrat]

A population growth of 1% is not entirely unrealistic. One of .2% would still make problems for evolution.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Kibbo86
Themusgrat,

Your population growth theory is flawed:

The growth rate of a given population is a factor of both births and deaths. If the proportionate death rate was higher in the past (which it inarguably was) then assuming a constant rate of population growth is fallacious.

Dude, did you really personally think that that argument was valid?

He's going thru every Creationist talking point that's been debunked eleventy-billion times.

 

[Gibsons]

2. Population.
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10^89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. Unless we don't think that early humans enjoyed sex. It seems to me that the more primal you get, the more humans would act like animals, and the more children would happen.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, that's hilarious. Seriously, who are you, this has been a great troll up to now, even I bought it, but nobody could seriously argue this.

Could they?

 

[LumbergTech]

I dont think they can reconcile their beliefs mainly because I think their beliefs are full of crap, that isnt to say that there arent things in the universe that we are unaware of, i just dont think that any of the "sacred texts" know anything about whats out there

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
1. RNA is not spontaneously generated, unless you mean "on-the-spot" by spontaneous. It never happens by itself.

Look up Joan Oro's work with hydrogen cyanide. Add to it a non-oxidative atmosphere... you have excellent conditions to generate adenosine and other bases necessary for RNA, all without the presence of pre-exisiting life.

Originally posted by: themusgrat
2. How can the total entropy of the universe increase if all of these billions of mutations and selections are moving to order?

Pffft. Why is that man continues to congregate in cities, when he should be evenly dispersed across the globe? That's going against thermodynamics :roll: See, this is what happens when you try to apply a scientific concept and have no understanding of the application of thermodynamics. Entropy can be decreased with the input of energy. It is simple as that. Earth receives an input of energy constantly, heat from its core, and EM waves known as light. In the bigger picture, the Sun producing energy is increasing entropy, it is emitting energy from a central source and spreading it out across the universe.

Originally posted by: themusgrat
It may be a good theory if you think about it for a second, but if you think about it for more than a second, it is not imaginable that a universe that is suposedly moving toward entropy can produce such ordered planets, solar systems, galexies, etc., laws. Did you ever think about where mathematics comes from? Oh, I see, these absolute laws come from a big explosion through random and beneficial genetic mutations... oops, no, maybe they just happened.

So you are speaking for God? Who is to say that God could work with his own logic, and "create" things that go against man's definition order and structure?

God does not speak on whether the universe must or must not be ordered. Stop putting words in God's mouth.

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Like I said before, for a scientific theory to be valid, it must be observable, and must be capable of being repeated. Will these laws of mathematics ever evolve?

So you reject all forms of chemistry, since you cannot observe an electron or proton?

Originally posted by: themusgrat
3. Show me where genes have been created naturally.

Phosphotriesterase. New catalytic action can arise in under 50 years, as bacteria have recently ?gained? the ability to break down a distinctly artificial human product, sarin and paraoxon by phosphotriesterase.

Benning, M. M., Hong, S-B., Raushel, F. M., and Holden, H. M. 2000. The Binding of Substrate Analogs to Phosphotriesterase. The Journal of Biological Chemistry: 275. 30556-30560.

How could a protein develop a function, when it has only been exposed to its substrates in the past 50 years?

Seems to be that a protein function had to develop "naturally."

Originally posted by: themusgrat
There are no examples, because whenever something exhibits a new characteristic, it is not a new gene, just a previously dormant gene.

Phosphotriesterase. Not found in any other bacteria, nor the same species of bacteria in areas not exposed to human forms of sarin and paroxon.

Originally posted by: themusgrat
4. Again, show me where natural selection chooses a mutated specimen.

Phoshotriesterase. The bacteria lived in a region exposed to high levels of sarin and paroxon, and the initial bacteria that had "developed" phosphotriesterase were much more successful than non-phosphotriesterase bacteria... resulting in the proliferation of that genotype.

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Remember, mutations are not inherited.

Mutation in the Sperm/Egg = inheritance in the human model. Mutation to germ line cells= inheritance of a mutation. Mutations are not limited to only a group of cells. It is inherent to all sources of DNA.

 

[torpid]

ID is a logical argument and not grounded in science. Also, it is possible to believe that something intelligent designed mankind through evolution, but this is not what "Intelligent Design" typically refers to.

One can certainly believe in the theory of evolution but not in the theory of the origin of life in the universe from primeval goo. I personally do not think that the primeval goo theory is so complex in requirements that it would require ID, but I suppose one could. The only way ID and primeval goo can coincide is if we assume that the conditions are so unlikely that an intelligent designer must have "set up the lab" so to speak in order to kick start life.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Also, here are more problems with evolution.

1. The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field. Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

2. Population.
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10^89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. Unless we don't think that early humans enjoyed sex. It seems to me that the more primal you get, the more humans would act like animals, and the more children would happen.

3. There are examples of human artifacts misplaced in the geological column. Such as a hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock.

Maybe you should just post a link to creationevidence.org instead of presenting their work as your own ideas.

 

[sweetpea70512]

What??? I can't come up with this idea on my own because I am a woman... I've been around for a few years and came up with this long before Intelligent Design became popular.

 

[davestar]

themusgrat: refer to this. it'll shoot down your point much more efficiently than we can.

Adressing your entropy argument:

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

Adressing your magnetic field argument:

"No. The Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planet's history."

 

[her209]

How do we know there is only one Designer?