Larry Gude
Strung Out
Thoughts on evolution/creationism...
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99291.htm
"The two pervious answers are correct if you are talking about the
evolution of living things based upon fossils. However,
evolution is fact in that we can demonstrate evolution with
bacteria and other organisms. Many experiments have successfully
shown the principles of evolution. We hear of the evolution of
TB for example to a point where drugs that use to be effective now
are not because the organism has evolved to a organism that
is no longer effected. Darwin's idea of natural selection is
and has been clearly demonstrated. However, when it comes to
the evolution of Homo sapiens and other higher plants and animals,
though the evidence seems clear as to how these organisms evolved,
science never lists anything as fact unless it can be clear demonstrated.
This can not be done due to the fact that the predecessors are no
longer living to positively verify what the fossils suggest.
In other words:
The process of evolution is fact. We can clearly demonstrate evolution
by how we define it.
The evolution of higher organisms is a theory, because the facts are
not available to be absolutely sure, but there is a growing amount of
facts that clearly suggest that evolution of all living things did
occur."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99291.htm
"The two pervious answers are correct if you are talking about the
evolution of living things based upon fossils. However,
evolution is fact in that we can demonstrate evolution with
bacteria and other organisms. Many experiments have successfully
shown the principles of evolution. We hear of the evolution of
TB for example to a point where drugs that use to be effective now
are not because the organism has evolved to a organism that
is no longer effected. Darwin's idea of natural selection is
and has been clearly demonstrated. However, when it comes to
the evolution of Homo sapiens and other higher plants and animals,
though the evidence seems clear as to how these organisms evolved,
science never lists anything as fact unless it can be clear demonstrated.
This can not be done due to the fact that the predecessors are no
longer living to positively verify what the fossils suggest.
In other words:
The process of evolution is fact. We can clearly demonstrate evolution
by how we define it.
The evolution of higher organisms is a theory, because the facts are
not available to be absolutely sure, but there is a growing amount of
facts that clearly suggest that evolution of all living things did
occur."
Larry Gude
Strung Out
A personal favorite...
Thought provoking, that.
Thought provoking, that.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
Yeah but ...
Could a trillion tornadoes on a trillion planets over several billion years - construct a little red wagon?
One of the weird things about "life" is that it only needs to get *started*. Simple abiogenesis experiments where organic molecules - amino acids, specifically - are created from simple chemicals via an electrical discharge - are a standard part of most biochemistry curricula. Since this was discovered some fifty years ago, self-replicating molecules have been created in labs repeatedly. While not "alive", it's not as far-fetched as that quote is.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Would that be...
...the basic premise behind quantum physics, that sooner or later, they would?
...the basic premise behind quantum physics, that sooner or later, they would?
No. But there is no sense in wasting my time on those that will not be convinced nor subjecting myself to the abuse of those that want to convince me.slotted said:You run alot don't you?
I firmly believe in micro evolution or mutation. I do not believe in macro evolution.Larry Gude said:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
I haven't the faintest idea. I just find the tornado idea a little silly. We can already re-create amino acids in a lab with common chemicals - and with a little effort, create self-replicating molecules. Add simple "life" to the mix and it doesn't seem implausible when stretched out over billions of years. Most of those comparisons suggest that randomness created complex life. Chemical evolution says *simple* life could have emerged in a much simpler fashion. I'm amazed it took so LONG.
Oddly enough, even though Hoyle rejected a lot of things - like the Big Bang and chemical evolution - he did embrace panspermia - the idea that life began here as a consequence of repeated arrivals of viruses from comets.
What about sexual reproduction? The eye? Ears? Darwin had a problem with those. No need for sexual reproduction to evolve. If it did, both male and female would have to evolve at the same time in the same place. Yes, I know some amphibians change sex; God is wonderful in His creation.SamSpade said:
2ndAmendment said:
Sexual reproduction may have initiated as something like bacterial conjugation, where 2 bacterial cells exchange genetic information, although there is no 'fusing' of genetic information, just exchange in conjugation. Male/female arguments aren't particularly necessary as the origins of sexual reproduction didn't necessarily involve 2 distinct forms coming together, just 2 individuals of the same species. Meiosis and the fusion of zygotes (sexual reproduction) don't need 2 distinct sexes, just 2 individuals.
The range of function from primitive to advanced eyes and ears in a wide diversity of organisms provides ample evidence that intermediate forms can have utility.
Excuses.dck4shrt said:
Nope. I am aware of what you post. I don't believe it is an explanation for the development of sexual reproduction. I think what you state are excuses to dismiss creation.dck4shrt said:
2ndAmendment said:
Science does not deal with creationism, so it can't dismiss it. Science is knowledge gained through experience. It objectively evaluates hypotheses by collecting and analyzing data. There is no data for what people believe (creationism) so there is nothing to evaluate, let alone dismiss it!
tirdun
staring into the abyss
No, it isn't. The dating comes from radioactive dating (not carbon dating, as you'll likely reply), ice core dating and other expensive and deeply understood sciences. The trilobites become index fossils if, and only if, they can be found only in a specific band of the geologic collumn. This allows other sections to be roughly dated or to have ranges set without paying for yet another radiometric exam. Only certain fossils work for this. This is the THIRD time I've explained this, and yet you still insist on perpetuating the absurd myth that index fossils are somehow a circular bit of logic.2ndAmendment said:
It is only an allegory if the comparison applies. There is no reproduction, no transfer of genetics, no pressures of environment in the construction of a house. If you are referring to abiogenesis, your allegory still fails.
Congratulations, you've shown a rote memorization of two rules of science with zero understanding of the underlying principles. Thermodynamics defines the entropy of a system and has nothing to do with general relativity in this instance. Unless you're suggesting that evolution requires a massive amount of speed or mass, or if you're somehow suggesting that genetics involves conversion of matter. But I doubt it.
Ah, well that settles that. Feel free to post other random bits of physics next time. Perhaps Planck's Constant or Hubble's law. Those wouldn't help you with the 6000 year old universe question, but they look impressive.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I see a potential weakness...
...if I only transmit when it's raining, the Gudewaves may well conduct across the protective surfaces...either that or catch you when you're walking on your hands...
Bustem' Down said:
...if I only transmit when it's raining, the Gudewaves may well conduct across the protective surfaces...either that or catch you when you're walking on your hands...
GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out. Much about all the dating methods can be suspect.tirdun said:
I could bring all my physics, chemistry, biology. math, and engineering course work to bear. I got good grades in all of those in college. I have worked as a very successful engineer and now as a computer scientist. So I do have a good understanding of the sciences. I just don't share your view on evolution.
And E=mc^2 relates all mass, and hence all matter, living and otherwise, since all matter has mass, to energy whether you agree or not.
tirdun
staring into the abyss
If used incorrectly or misapplied. Or ignored. Your casual dismissal carries zero weight.2ndAmendment said:
Special relativity has no bearing whatsoever on the fundementals of biology. It does not tie the second (or any other) law of thermodynamics to evolutionary processes. Are you suggesting that reproduction and genetic events occur as such high velocities that they cause an increase in mass? Does time dilate during the mating process?
Unless you can somehow derive a connection between the mass/velocity equations of modern physics and the properties of genetic transfer, then its clear you're fishing blindly for some way to resuscitate the ancient creationist canard about the 2nd law, assuming people will simply see Einstein's formula and be impressed.
The Theory of Thermodynamics does not invalidate the Theory of Evolution. The second law deals with the loss of usable energy to entropy. Evolution is a uncomplicated example of increasing order through an increase in total energy used. Life evolves, entropy continues.