It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on May, 11 2004 @ 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Kano
So how does that possibly by any stretch of the imagination come close to proving Creation?

Because it is creation.

By this logic we can say 'now that we have invented thermonuclear weapons, that proves god made the sun and all the stars'. What sort of gutter logic is that?

No, not directly. It rises the probability. Via proving that Creation is possible, and by presenting clear proof, that God did it more or less in exactly the same manner as do scienists today, we are infact able to say that it's very likely that God did infact do the things he did more or less the way it is described in the opening chapters of Genesis.

But why is it so bloody important what happened thousands and billions of years ago. We can prove creation now. And what do you know. The bible explains how it's done. There are so many referances to genetics in the Tanakh it's nearly insane. And may I add that the Hebrew word for cell. Yes, it is a small room in a building or a biological cell, is and has always been the same words as for rib, and the word which is used where God "removes a 'rib'" from Adam to create Woman. And there's a portion in the part when God removes this cell from the malefemale Adam who was actually about to get modified, for the text says.

And God gave Adam narcosis, and he took a cell out of him, and he closed the shameful wound down there and filled it with flesh. And from the cell he had taken from the Man, he created Woman.

That's what the text says anyway. How is this concistant with modern science, and what about the obvious assumtion that these stories actually might be true? Be them 1000, 4000 or seven billion years old. We basically have an ancient book discribing a modern, high precission, surgical procedure, we hear genetic modification and engeneering being more than suggested, he even takes use of the same technique when he shapes his new lifeforms which is used by modern engeneers, industrial designers, car designers etc. They make clay models, and thanks to electricity, computers, optics and ingenuity. they are able to scan those models in 3D and have them rendered and made ready for finetuning in cad/3D format. A Creator who is able to genetically modify, we are talking micro surgery here, nucleogenetics or how it is soelled out in English, well, it would be incredibly strange if he hadn't got computers, electricity and optics etc. Not to mention ingenuity....

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 02:53 PM
You're talking about manipulation not creation.
Scientifically there is no evidence that something can be created without a base starting point.

Creation in the biblical aspect alludes to something from nothing and therefore is out of place in the context to which you allude here.

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 03:29 PM
Hehe. I bet the geneticists would love that one. It's transforming one specie into another, even a complete new class of lifeforms. I wouldn't really use the word manipulate, rather modify or upgrade, or 'transform' like Paul says: "Not all of you shall die, but you shall all be transformed". And further, Jesjuah says: "In Heaven they don't marry, but they are like the angels in Heaven".

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Camelopárdalis]

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
What fossil evidence. It is infact the lack of fossil evidence which made Evolution crumble in the first place. Of all the thousands of bones they have unearthed, not a single transitional thingy exists. They say yes, there are dinos looking more like birds than other. I ask: Which birds?

this just proves that u have little knowledge when it comes to evolution. according to the theory of evolution, this dino-bird evolved into a 1 single species of birds. then, that single bird most likely flew to different parts of the world with different enviroments. these enviroments would've favored certain traits and thus, it created all the bird species u see today.

Using the technology of today, it is nearly possible to recreate whatever Elohim created back then. It was the Creative Forces that created the Universe, designed it's laws and made it inhabitable. The Book of Genesis when held against the Gospel, and draw a timeline using the Hebrew calendar, and the key one day equals 1000 years, Matter and Space was created about 17 billion years ago. A couple of billion years later, God said Let there be Light! That's what you would have called Big Bang. Then, the next day he starts shaping the planets and the billions of suns, the word for firmament suggests a curved or circular shape, broken by a horizon, eg globular, the Earth wasnt yet firm. That happened the next day, when the water gathered in one place. A new level of matter was created. A new dimentional continuum if you like. And so plants come the next day. Then the next day a clear athmosphere, prolly because of the plants. The Sun and the Moon becomes visible. The next day, sea creatures of all kinds. The next, land creatures and flying creatures. Then comes the next day when humans arrive on the scene. Tell me exactly how this story conflicts with science except that it talks of Creative Intelligent Forces instead of pure chance.

and u might remember that god created eve the very next "day." in ur case, a day would have to equal over a billion years. so therefore, ur saying that adam had to wait a few billion years for eve? and the book of genesis said that birds and sea creatures were made on the SAME day. how does this make sense?

Down's Syndrome. Have you ever seen a guy from Mongolia with Downs? Well, basically he looks like a hansom Caucasian guy. And when a Caucasian guy with Down's looks like a handsome Mongolian. It makes me kinda think.

personally, i don't like to get my jollies on with down syndrome ppl. i have no clue as to how u think ppl with down syndrome in different races are good looking but the down syndrome ppl i work with as a volunteer at the local hostpital, they're not that......attractive.

we are genetically identical more or less. We are all still the same breed of humans.

and this only proves that we are all from a common ancestor. u said it urself. genetically identical means that we came from a common ancestor more or less. therefore, since chimps and humans are 98% genetically identical, they must have the same ancestors.

A Creator will most likely continue to build and devellop existing genomes. This just doesn't happen by itself. It has never been observed. But like I said, Creation has been prooved, tested and tested again. Man has created new species using technology. Nature has never shown any proofs of this, that it has happened by itself.

wow......ur talking as if u expect to see evolution happen to ever animal instantly. in animals with a reletively complex body and large population. evolution can take as little as a few thousand years, to a few billion. the brocollis, calliflower, and all those other puffy looking vegetable that we eat didn't exist when civilization started. they originated from a single mustard plant. after natural selection, we got a variety of those plants.
all those experiments done in labs only proves that WE have the capability to do that. not some false "god."

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 08:32 PM
Camel, genetic engineering does NOT prove that a higher being created us using similar methods. all this proves is that WE have the capability to do this. not a higher being. if u can find a higher being and have it do this in front of my eyes, i'll believe u. yes u r right when u say that it's "creation" but it's creation done by US. not a higher being. y do u think that the roman catholic church is opposed to this stuff? we're supposedly "messing around with god's creation."

BlackJackal, it's kind of hard to actually document an experiment that's suppose to take thousands or a few billion years. the theory of evolution was created not too long ago and we really can't prove this on a large scale. but, it has been done in a smaller scale with bacteria and microorganisms. just google it and u'll find plenty of research.

posted on May, 11 2004 @ 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Camelopárdalis
Hehe. I bet the geneticists would love that one. It's transforming one specie into another, even a complete new class of lifeforms. I wouldn't really use the word manipulate, rather modified.

actually, we had something to start with: amino acids, nucleotides, ribose, DNA, RNA, etc. all they did is just take snips and pieces from other organisms and put them back together. sometimes, there are so many pieces, that they create something new.

P.S. if i were u, i'd seriously think about what i'm going to post. u told me that ur not advocating the christian religion. by the looks of ur post i'd say that ur CLEARLY trying to advocate christianity and trying to convert us. (referring to god by his many names, directly referring to genesis and the bible)
this is exactly y i broke away from the church. instead of letting people chose their own destiny, the church makes u afraid by telling u that ur going to hell if u don't follow its teachings. also, instead of handing out bibles in third world countries, y don't they hand out MORE food and MORE clean water and MORE money to help out their public services? instead of wasting their money on the bible, y not give them stuff that will actually help them live?


posted on May, 11 2004 @ 11:33 PM
Seriously people, your discussions seem to become attacks, and it makes it hard for others to converse!

Most here have vaild points on either side, but no~one can decifer who is who and what is what. STOP it. Have discussion, and I will bet, all will come too COMMON grounds. . .

Then again, maybe not.

Tell you what, my next post on this matter, coming right up, will tell you what you are SUPPOSE to believe . . . Wich will be my own theory, then argue again and again, or maybe there will be sumtnin' in this theory that you, or you, or you, can actually come to a common ground with . . . Or not, but whatever.

. . . .Peace


posted on May, 12 2004 @ 12:28 AM
K . . .

Regardless of the Universal origin, wich is the key to our existance . . . Hehehehee

Anyway, Earth evolved and Brought forth. This is the statement of both Evolutionists and the Bible. (If you disagree, ask me , I will try to pinpoint it for you)

Oopps, my theory has been debunked by my girlfriend that says ( get off there now, or sleep alone) I said goodnight . . .

Maybe I will be back after she is, ummm, yeah . . .

Regardless, gotta go and I guess my theory is simple. It is, and we are. . . .

Nah, evolved species of Earth, interviened of another. Science and Religion SPEAK of this.

Come together, and you will know / / / /

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 07:09 AM
OK I haven't checked this page for about a day or so, but in response to what jlc163 said about three pages back:

Correct me if I'm wrong but any probability, whether 1 in 2x10^900 or 1 in 2 is still a probability and technically is possible. The odds of it happening are almost impossible, but nothing stops it from happening. No theory or "law" is going to change that fact. It's improbable, not impossible.

Also, jlc163, you could voice your viewpoint just as effectively without being patronizing.

[Edited on 5-12-2004 by Hawk]

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by amantine
At a depth were the amount of ultraviolet is no longer dangerous, there is still enough light for photosynthesis. Ultraviolet is in the region right of the visible light.

Yes photosynthesis would be possible but abiogenesis would completely be ruled because the amount of energy coming into the system would not be enough to satisfy an open system model(Not enough energy to cause local order). So instead of the chances of abiogenesis being 1 in 10^113 it would be 0.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 08:36 AM
I have got a question for any and all evolution supporters here today.

Did you know that your body contains about 75 trillion cells? Did you know that virtually each of these cells is designed with thousands of tiny machines? Research methods into cell ultra structure have recently revealed motor organelles, discrete structures inside the cell, that could not even be imagined a mere three decades ago. These fascinating submicroscopic machines, “molecular motors,” have now been discovered in the cells of people, bacteria, and animals:

Bacteria have sophisticated molecular machineries dedicated to regulating their growth and division with superb accuracy. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors. Among the best known are motors that use sophisticated intra molecular amplification mechanisms

Such tiny motors may actually be seen using special shadowing techniques and high-resolution electron micrographs. The machines, or motors, are comprised of protein and aid in various cellular processes that include cell division, organelle transport and function, and cargo transport along protein tracks in the cytoplasm (the living contents of a cell).

Myosin V [a member of a diverse protein family—the most common being is the myosin that makes up our muscles], a cellular motor protein, carries cargo within cells by moving along actin filaments. It takes 37-nanometer steps by placing one “foot” over the other . . . Genetic mistakes, i.e. mutations, causing motor imperfections may lead to severe defects and possibly lethal diseases. Ironically, Darwinists suppose that mutations “created” the molecular motors! No Creator was involved, they maintain. Like so many areas of biology, research into molecular motors is in its infancy. Roles of many such motors remain unknown. While Darwinian researchers use the word machine, a functional unit with various moving parts, the very term implies

One point seems obvious: if it takes the concerted efforts of a small army of designers, engineers, and construction workers to assemble the large motors seen in power plants for example, then what about these submicroscopic protein motors that evolutionists call sophisticated, having superb accuracy? How can something so complex be such an accidentJust a question.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Hawk
Correct me if I'm wrong but any probability, whether 1 in 2x10^900 or 1 in 2 is still a probability and technically is possible. The odds of it happening are almost impossible, but nothing stops it from happening. No theory or "law" is going to change that fact.
Also, jlc163, you could voice your viewpoint just as effectively without being patronizing.
[Edited on 5-12-2004 by Hawk]

Look, anything under the sun is POSSIBLE: It is possible that your arms will break off from your shoulders and dance around the room, taking on a life of their own (God, I love Terry Pratchet!). (NOT that many more zeros behind that one than there is in EVOLUTION!
) There's no end to the possible, but it falls under the same basic rule that you follow the least restictive path. Something that has that many zeroes behind it, as a chance, is so highly restrictive that it is more of FAITH to believe it (that has less varibles behind it, as well) than to not...the reason that "LAW" was written was to keep comic book-type thinking out of the realm of matematics...

Now, as for Patronising:

Definition: [adj] (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension Synonyms: arch, condescending, patronizing, superior Adj. 1. patronizing - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension etc. etc. etc. ...

If you knew where I pulled the Chiddies and Chuddies w/ attitude thing from, you'd see a little further...and understand that it was rather self-derisive, instead of patronising.

In a novel called Native Toungue, the News announcer who would use this type of demeanor to slander a group of people in nothing but ignorant lies. I, understanding that I said was no lie, nor was I doing anything to imply inaccracy...but I know that some, like you, were going to get a little annoyed at me for pointing out that possibility doesn't make it so, just as probability doesn't. That, in fact, meeting only possibility's standards is NOTHING to build a stack of cards on--no matter how sturdy you believe them to be. You are still not likely to believe--hence, the chiddies and chuddies...the novel's rather good.

Look, people, it's really hard to denote intent in words on a site like this. THAT IS WHY I HAVE THE FREAKING DISCLAIMER IN MY SIGNATURE.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by BlackJackal
How can something so complex be such an accidentJust a question.

Who says that it's an accident? The cells are just working to nature. What about newly discovered viruses such as SARS or AIDS? They certainly weren't created by God in the way that you are suggesting man was. They mutated and adapted to environment.

As you said yourself - the research into cell structure is recent. We've only been scratching the surface in biomedical science for 30 years. Just because something cannot be scientifically explained does not mean that it is an accident or that it doesn't have an explanation.

The whole creationist theory has a far shakier foundation than that of evolution. Like it or not - evolution theory is based on science. Sure it may be a science in it's infancy but then 300 years ago wasn't the Earth the centre of the Universe? Creationism is based on what? Folklore taken from religious culture. A basis of belief comtaining quite a lot which has no foundation in either logic or science.

I don't dispute that there is a God. But with scientific understanding of the laws of nature, it seems to me that he didn't create man as he stands now. He created the soul not the physical. The physical adapted and changed over time.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Yes photosynthesis would be possible but abiogenesis would completely be ruled because the amount of energy coming into the system would not be enough to satisfy an open system model(Not enough energy to cause local order). So instead of the chances of abiogenesis being 1 in 10^113 it would be 0.

There would be plenty of energy. 1.3 kilowatt/m2 of light hits the earth. Not much of this is absorbed by the water. Ultraviolet light is absorbed 109 times more than visible light. Combined with heating from inside the earth there would more than enough energy.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by amantine]

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by BlackJackal
How can something so complex be such an accidentJust a question.

Who says that it's an accident? The cells are just working to nature. What about newly discovered viruses such as SARS or AIDS? They certainly weren't created by God in the way that you are suggesting man was. They mutated and adapted to environment.

Yes, and viluses like the two you use in your example, have been used to show how they have been created, and that their extreme abilities to adapt and mutate etc. could "never" have been like they are unless they were deliberately programmed for that.

Besides, AIDS is not a virus. HIV is a virus, AIDS is a disease caused by the HIV virus.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by amantine

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Yes photosynthesis would be possible but abiogenesis would completely be ruled because the amount of energy coming into the system would not be enough to satisfy an open system model(Not enough energy to cause local order). So instead of the chances of abiogenesis being 1 in 10^113 it would be 0.

There would be plenty of energy. 1.3 kilowatt/m2 of light hits the earth. Not much of this is absorbed by the water. Ultraviolet light is absorbed 109 times more than visible light. Combined with heating from inside the earth there would more than enough energy.

But then you are depoending on something which is not just unlikely, but absurd, that the athmosphere on Earth back then was like it is today. Probably, the weather was slightly overcast to use a fitting understatement there, and this place was also an extreme and hostile environment, with extreme volcanic activity etc.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 10:37 AM
Alright, lets talk about open systems so that everyone can understand. In fact, as a rule of thumb entropy (or decreasing organization ie. Cups break, rocks decay, etc) occurs more rapidly in open systems than in closed systems. Unless there are precisely established control elements as described below, allowing energy to flux through a system will simply speed up the decay. Consider:

1. A freeze dried meal is kept in its' vacuum-sealed pouch. An identical meal pouch is torn open and left in the sun. The contents of which will decay faster?

2. A mothballed building is enclosed to a solid bubble that blocks out everything from radiation to the weather; an identical building is left standing in the open. Which will break down and collapse more rapidly?

3. A deceased human body is placed in a secure and airtight coffin; another body is thrown in a dirt hole. Whose body will decay faster?

As a general rule, the more open the system the faster decay will occur. But it is obvious (as the evolutionists point out) that this is not always true. If decay always increases all the time and everywhere, we would achieve instant universal heat death and there would be no organization or complexity anywhere. Yet this computer exists in front of me, an example of complexity and order in spite of the processes of decay affecting it. You and I exist, our bodies being a source of tremendous complexity amidst the constancy of entropy. How can these local patterns of order exist in a world of decay?

Scientists have identified four criteria which, if met, will allow an open system to locally reduce entropy and increase order and organization within the system. People who rely on the "open system" argument need to acknowledge and understand that open systems are a necessary but by themselves insufficient requirement for complexity.

Four Requirements for Complexity (Biological or Otherwise) in a System:

1. System Must Be Open

2. An Adequate Energy Supply Must be Available

3. Energy Conversion Tools/Mechanisms

4. Blueprint/Template/Control System Must Exist to Organize Converted Energy

There is an element of precision which must exist among these components for the system to achieve reduced entropy. For example, for component #2 the energy available must be of the correct quality and quantity for the required output. An example of qualitative requirements would be a normal car engine. It needs gasoline to function and run the car up a hill, not diesel, natural gas, water, blood plasma, electricity, etc. And if 5 oz. of gasoline are required, a quantity of 3 oz. would fail to achieve the hill climb and the car would roll back down. Simply having some kind of energy, or some amount of the correct form of energy, does not guarantee anything.

Next, energy conversion tooling must be correct for the reduced entropy output. For example, construction tools of the correct types are required to build a house, not kitchen appliances, mainframe computers, car engines, metal-forges, farming implements, mining equipment, etc. Simply having some sort of energy conversion going on does not guarantee anything.

Lastly, blueprints must be specific and correctly matched with the energy and tooling for a reduced entropy output. If a certain protein molecule is to be constructed by a living cell, it will not be constructed by sections of DNA that code for non-protein molecules, or the wrong protein molecule.

On another account Amantine spoke of Speciation but he left out a few important details.

This is absolutely true (speciation as science defines it has been observed) but, as I have stated already, there is no dispute here. However, Amantine does not get to the core of the matter and leads us to the notion that the origins controversy is one of science versus religion—that creationists deny the fact of speciation and are thus “ignorant”. Why isn’t it mentioned that the critical point, namely that creationists do accept speciation—but the dispute is about the causing agent of speciation, biodiversity and, ultimately, biological origins? Why sidestep the issue by giving examples of something that creationists agree with, instead of facing the empirical roadblock to the arbitrary extrapolation of Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution from the variations observed in speciation? Deception by omission.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 10:48 AM
In reference to the SARS Virus. A recent article in Scientific American was called SARS Evolution Traced. It described the possible return of SARS in China and referred to an article published online in Science, a professional science journal, describing how the virus evolved. However, the article in Scientific American provides absolutely no evidence for evolution. Creationists have no problems with seeing a particular variation of a virus gaining dominance, a situation that does not involve an increase in information, just an increase in the population of an existing virus. That is not evolutionary, despite common attempts to paint any population change as evolutionary. Creationism does not mandate static populations--mutations and reproductive patterns cause changes in populations, but they do not result in molecules-to-man evolution.

The scientists who have studied SARS take it rather personally:

What we see is the virus fine-tuning itself to enhance its access to a new host: humans," study co-author Chung-I Wu of the University of Chicago explains. "This is a disturbing process to watch, as the virus improves itself under selective pressure, learning to spread from person to person, then sticking with the version that is most effective.

Notice the personification--"the virus fine-tuning itself," "the virus improves itself," "the virus learns," and it even opts for "sticking with the version that is most effective." In reality, how does a virus stick with a version that is most effective? The version that survives is by definition the most effective. Viruses don't learn or fine-tune themselves. A population shift occurs when some environmental change or genetic shuffling proves to be significant, but there's no "viral mind" making choices and learning to take over human bodies like some minature Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Also the HIV virus did not just come from nothing, Evidently, inappropriate sexual acts by humans caused the transfer of a lentivirus from a monkey to humans. As long as the HIV lentivirus lived in monkeys, it was not a threat for humans. HIV in monkeys (called SIV), appears not to cause disease in most of its natural hosts, and bacteria and viruses that cause disease today may not always have done so. The same situation also is true of syphilis (apparently from sheep) and many other infectious diseases. Baboons resist being adversely infected by HIV, and for years researchers have been exposing certain animals to the virus without infecting them.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 11:20 AM
You seem to have a problem with the concept entropy. It's a statistical number for measuring the total amount of disorder in a closed system. Total amount of disorder means that there can be ordered places and disordered places. The statistical number called entropy has no problem with order increasing in certain places, as long it is cancelled out by disorder in other places. Your examples are deception by omission, order can also increase by letting energy go through a system, for example keeping ferromagnetic metals in a magnetic field will keep their spins ordered for some time.

You also make the problem of applying entropy to objects of a much larger scale than bacteria. Complex molecules
forming spontaneously is not against the 2nd law (source):

The value of the second law of thermodynamics is that it quantitatively describes the energetic aspects of the chemical elements and the compounds they form. The chemical potential energy bound in most of the 20,000,000 known kinds of molecules is LESS than that in their elements. Thus, energetically, the second law says that the majority of compounds now known could spontaneously form from the corresponding elements.

The second law states that energy tends not to be restricted to one or a few energy levels in atoms and molecules, but to be dispersed to as many such levels as possible – rephrased in homely terms involving molecules, "Intense or concentrated energy tends to spread out and diffuse".

In that spreading-out process, macro objects sometimes are displaced and moved to random arrangements that humans subjectively define as "disorder". A violent wind not only can break a window in a building and blow the papers in an office all over a square mile, but also destroy the building itself. However, this is an incidental consequence of dispersing and spreading out of the energy in a tornado, not an event that is due to the innate nature or behavior of inanimate objects in the absence of such an energy flow. Moving common objects around so they fall in disorder is a singular and accidental aspect of the universal tendency of energy to diffuse, not the general thrust or meaning or requirement of the second law that applies to objects.


Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.

Your argument about complexity is wrong because the fourth thing you give as required for complexity is not required at all: there is not a need for a blueprint. Very complex and ordered crystals can form without any kind of blueprint, just think about diamonds, graphite or ice. Stars and planets, very complex things, form without a blueprint.

The third required is always there when there is matter. Any atom is an energy convertor. It can change the size of energy packets and it can store energy in bonds with other elements. Nothing as strange as a machine or mining equipment is required.

As I understand it the problem you have with my specification examples is that I didn't show they were caused by microevolution. Some of examples occur through chromosome changes or simply DNA mutations, under selection pressures. This is the proposed mechanism of microevolution. The chromosome or DNA changes cause offspring of a pair of one of the new species and one of the old species to be either born dead or sterile. Two examples:

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

posted on May, 12 2004 @ 11:58 AM
Thank You for your concern about my knowledge of entropy but I completely understand it and have shown how it excludes abiogenesis and evolution several times in this thread but I will do it once more.

To quote one anti-creationist, Boyce Rensberger who puts forth the same argument that you do:

If the Second Law truly prohibited local emergence of increased order, there would be no ice cubes. The greater orderliness of water molecules in ice crystals than in the liquid state is purchased with the expenditure of energy at the generator that made the electricity to run the freezer. And that makes it legal under the Second Law.

An energy source is not enough to produce the specified complexity of life. The energy must be directed in some way. The ice in the above example would not form if the electrical energy was just wired into liquid water. Instead, we would get lots of heat, and the water breaking up into simpler components, hydrogen and oxygen.

The ice example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life. When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and entropy) from their surroundings. Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature.

Rensberger also fails to distinguish between order and complexity. Crystals are ordered; life is complex. To illustrate: a periodic (repeating) signal, e.g. ABABABABABAB, is an example of order. However, it carries little information: only ‘AB’, and ‘print 6 times’.

A crystal is analogous to that sequence; it is a regular, repeating network of atoms. Like that sequence, a crystal contains little information: the co-ordinates of a few atoms (i.e. those which make up the unit cell), and instructions ‘more of the same’ x times. If a crystal is broken, smaller but otherwise identical crystals result. Conversely, breaking proteins, DNA or living structures results in destruction, because the information in them is greater than in their parts.

A crystal forms because this regular arrangement, determined by directional forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Random signals, e.g. WEKJHDF BK LKGJUES KIYFV NBUY, are not ordered, but complex. But a random signal contains no useful information. A non-random aperiodic (non-repeating) signal specified complexity e.g. ‘I love you’, may carry useful information. However, it would be useless unless the receiver of the information understood the English language convention. The amorous thoughts have no relationship to that letter sequence apart from the agreed language convention. The language convention is imposed onto the letter sequence.

Proteins and DNA are also non-random aperiodic sequences. The sequences are not caused by the properties of the constituent amino acids and nucleotides themselves. This is a huge contrast to crystal structures, which are caused by the properties of their constituents. The sequences of DNA and proteins must be imposed from outside by some intelligent process. Proteins are coded in DNA, and the DNA code comes from pre-existing codes, not by random processes.

Many scientific experiments show that when their building blocks are simply mixed and chemically combined, a random sequence results. To make a protein, scientists need to add one unit at a time, and each unit requires a number of chemical steps to ensure that the wrong type of reaction doesn’t occur. The same goes for preparing a DNA strand in a correct sequence.

The evolutionary origin-of-life expert Leslie Orgel confirmed that there are three distinct concepts: order, randomness and specified complexity:

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.
[L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

Even the simplest known self-reproducing life form (Mycoplasma) has 482 genes, and it must parasitize more complex organisms to obtain the building blocks it cannot manufacture itself. The simplest organism that could exist in theory would need at least 256 genes, and it’s doubtful whether it could survive.

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in