On Evolution & Creation

[TagliatelliMonster]

They're not "two different things." Either humans are fish or they are not. Maybe they're fruit flies. I'll look that up.

Humans are eukaryote vertebrates.
So are fish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing special here, did a little research about FRUIT FLIES and see that guess what!!! they were the first living creatures sent into space in 1947, so I read. Imagine that! Poor little fruit flies...

Your dodge of the points raised in the post you are replying to, is noted.

Hey, I get it.... you got to make sure you don't learn anything that might actually correct your misrepresentations and strawmen about the theory you are hellbend on arguing against on religious grounds.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

View attachment 98213

If the first one is supposed to be the ancestor of them all, then there are exactly none of those alive today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So where are the millions of the species that came just before humans?

You can see their fossilized remains in museums.

Or, you can do what all other creationists do:

Where are they?

Dead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh that's convenient, Thank You.

Where are your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-...-great grandparents?

Ow, they are dead? You can't show them to me?
So, does that mean they didn't exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I paid attention and was an honor student

You claim this all the time. And yet you demonstrate with every post that you don't even understand the basics. You make elementary rookie mistakes and categorically refuse to correct them. So what's that about?

They have not found that common ancestor said to be that of the ape varieties, have they?

They have found plenty. Not that it matters.
The world doesn't owe us any fossils. Evolution would still be more then demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt on extant genetic evidence alone in case we didn't have a single fossil of any species. But off course we DO have plenty of fossils.

Kind of strange that a supposed "honor student" isn't aware of this.
Perhaps visit the smithsonian one of these days.

 

[Astrophile]

It may have been Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel, who published a seminal paper entitled 'Directed Panspermia' in 1973. The logical difficulty with all hypotheses of this kind is that either life had to get started on the planet that the extra-terrestrials came from, which merely puts the origin of life back a step without solving it, or requires a previous generation of extra-terrestrials to start life on the planet where 'our' extra-terrestrials came from. It is the old problem of an infinite regress, or 'who made God?'

 

[Argentbear]

There are -- but if you're that interested, I don't like naming names right now and they are easy to find with a quick search. But if you don't want to, or don't believe me (and yes, why should you?) that is ok. Just to reiterate though, there are esteemed scientists who say that alien spaceships could have deposited the beginning of life on earth. I'm surprised you question that, but it's ok, have a good night and say what you will. I'm not surprised at this point...

And no one is surprised that you won't back up your own claims

 

[Pogo]

name this "renowned" scientist

Panspermia has a long history, dating back to the 5th century BCE and the natural philosopher Anaxagoras.[17] Classicists came to agree that Anaxagoras maintained the Universe (or Cosmos) was full of life, and that life on Earth started from the fall of these extra-terrestrial seeds.[18] Panspermia as it is known today, however, is not identical to this original theory. The name, as applied to this theory, was only first coined in 1908 by Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist.[14][19] Prior to this, since around the 1860s, since then many prominent scientists were becoming interested in the theory, for example Sir Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe.[20][21]

Panspermia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not that it has anything to do with evolution.

 

[Audie]

Correct. So stop talking to me.

Please

 

[Audie]

In other words there is no such renowned scientist

But if there were, he would be “renowened”.
Or brilliant.
Scientists that in any way suit the creos are always like thst.

 

[Argentbear]

Panspermia has a long history, dating back to the 5th century BCE and the natural philosopher Anaxagoras.[17] Classicists came to agree that Anaxagoras maintained the Universe (or Cosmos) was full of life, and that life on Earth started from the fall of these extra-terrestrial seeds.[18] Panspermia as it is known today, however, is not identical to this original theory. The name, as applied to this theory, was only first coined in 1908 by Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist.[14][19] Prior to this, since around the 1860s, since then many prominent scientists were becoming interested in the theory, for example Sir Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe.[20][21]

Panspermia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not that it has anything to do with evolution.

Thank you. I know. I was just watching another poster squirm and avoid answering the question.

 

[wellwisher]

You have just been told that your assumption of evolution having a "goal" (as in: an end-design) in mind is wrong.

Why do you then still double down on this mistake? Why do you insist on being wrong and arguing a strawman?

The conceptual problem, that the current theory of evolution makes, is the black box math, due to the very nature of its random assumption, does not allow a goal to occur; math bias. If you assume random, so you can properly apply the statistical model, no goal is possible by the default, due to your base math assumptions. This puts the cart before the horse. The life science are vested in black box assumptions and they are stuck in a self fulfilling prophesy; defaults to no goal is possible. Has to have side effects.

I look at evolution, as connected to the 2nd law and entropy. This 2nd law states that entropy has to increase. This term, " increase" is not random since if entropy was random, it could spontaneously decrease or increase. But the 2nd law says it has to increase, which implies a sense of a single direction. This law; sense of positive direction, supersedes any black box assumption. Black box is not a law of science but a math tool assumption. I am comfortable following the laws of science.

Entropy is also what is called a state variable. This means any state of matter has a fixed measurable amount of measured entropy; constant, that characterizes that state, sort of like a finger print. For entropy to increase, these state values also have to increase, forming a new state of higher fixed entropy.

In the chat below of entropy value, water going from liquid to gas increases its entropy constant; new state. Notice diamond; right top, has the lowest entropy, since it is so simple being a uniform matrix of tetrahedrally bonded carbon; perfectly simple and not complex. Graphite is more uniform in 2-D simple and a higher entropy due to the slight increase in complexity its z-variable, brings. Graphite is slippery due to the easier z-axis shear planes.

A cell can also be considered an integrated entropic state, and evolution, driven by an entropy increase, that will form a new state of higher entropy constant; evolution means an increase in the entropy state. If we add O2 and CO2 gases to liquid water, the average entropy of this state solution of water, will increase. Metabolism has an extended entropy affect; O2 and CO2 in water. If we were to metabolizes iso-octane down to CO2, we increase entropy, drastically, due to the entropy state weight of all the CO2 molecules we will make. Such goals could be anticipated by evolution.

The water and oil effect causes water to pack and fold protein lowering their entropy; lower complexity. The protein would be more complex all stretched out wiggling like worms. Water packs, folds and squeezes them into a little ball state. That creates entropic potential or creates a state of lowered entropy, opposite the 2nd law. The hydrogen bonding of water is strong enough to do this. With all protein treated this way by water, the cell becomes a zone/state of lowered structural entropy constant, due to the structural deficit created by water. This gives the cell; zone/state, an extra natural push to evolve; extra push to increase protein entropy. But it will still remain under the constraint that water will continue to pack the protein toward lower entropy.

Since water will continue to ball up the proteins, the only good ways to increase protein entropy is to modify the protein, so the final state is higher in entropy; add a reactive site, and/or slight structural improvements; amino acid sequence change. This will not form a new species, but adds the potential for directed change on the various parts, until the entire cellular state, increases entropy; quantum step upward to a new state; species.

 

[metis]

Insofar as miracles vs. magic and "evidence" -- how about Jesus being born of a virgin, going to heaven, meeting Paul on the road to Damascus. That's kinda why I got on here to begin with...so glad I did, and so I thank you very much!
Myth? Magic? Miracles? hmmm...Easter eggs, ok...chocolate ok..evolution -- ok...

Who's taking about "magic" other than you? Can't you stay on topic?

 

[metis]

Did these experiments keep going to see just how much they developed into different species-- of fruit flies? Guess there wasn't enough time for them to get to be not fruit flies -- unless, of course, as some people say humans are fish...maybe not fruit flies -- I'll look at the taxonomic figurations of the figuring of scientists as to what happened if fruit flies evolved according to science to something other than -- fruit flies...good question! Thanks, or really perhaps some might say gorillas are fruit flies. But no! They're FISH! Now I'll have to see what came first -- fruit flies or fish.

Complete nonsense and, frankly, dishonesty. If you can't stay on topic in an honest way, then I'm no longer going to waste my time with you.

 

[metis]

The conceptual problem, that the current theory of evolution makes, is the black box math, due to the very nature of its random assumption, does not allow a goal to occur; math bias. If you assume random, so you can properly apply the statistical model, no goal is possible by the default, due to your base math assumptions. This puts the cart before the horse. The life science are vested in black box assumptions and they are stuck in a self fulfilling prophesy; defaults to no goal is possible. Has to have side effects.

There's a difference between short-term randomness versus long-term randomness according to the geneticists. IOW, after a while, some generalized patterns dealing with mutations do occur even though they may not be specific.

 

[Pogo]

The conceptual problem, that the current theory of evolution makes, is the black box math, due to the very nature of its random assumption, does not allow a goal to occur; math bias. If you assume random, so you can properly apply the statistical model, no goal is possible by the default, due to your base math assumptions. This puts the cart before the horse. The life science are vested in black box assumptions and they are stuck in a self fulfilling prophesy; defaults to no goal is possible. Has to have side effects.

I look at evolution, as connected to the 2nd law and entropy. This 2nd law states that entropy has to increase. This term, " increase" is not random since if entropy was random, it could spontaneously decrease or increase. But the 2nd law says it has to increase, which implies a sense of a single direction. This law; sense of positive direction, supersedes any black box assumption. Black box is not a law of science but a math tool assumption. I am comfortable following the laws of science.

Entropy is also what is called a state variable. This means any state of matter has a fixed measurable amount of measured entropy; constant, that characterizes that state, sort of like a finger print. For entropy to increase, these state values also have to increase, forming a new state of higher fixed entropy.

In the chat below of entropy value, water going from liquid to gas increases its entropy constant; new state. Notice diamond; right top, has the lowest entropy, since it is so simple being a uniform matrix of tetrahedrally bonded carbon; perfectly simple and not complex. Graphite is more uniform in 2-D simple and a higher entropy due to the slight increase in complexity its z-variable, brings. Graphite is slippery due to the easier z-axis shear planes.

A cell can also be considered an integrated entropic state, and evolution, driven by an entropy increase, that will form a new state of higher entropy constant; evolution means an increase in the entropy state. If we add O2 and CO2 gases to liquid water, the average entropy of this state solution of water, will increase. Metabolism has an extended entropy affect; O2 and CO2 in water. If we were to metabolizes iso-octane down to CO2, we increase entropy, drastically, due to the entropy state weight of all the CO2 molecules we will make. Such goals could be anticipated by evolution.

The water and oil effect causes water to pack and fold protein lowering their entropy; lower complexity. The protein would be more complex all stretched out wiggling like worms. Water packs, folds and squeezes them into a little ball state. That creates entropic potential or creates a state of lowered entropy, opposite the 2nd law. The hydrogen bonding of water is strong enough to do this. With all protein treated this way by water, the cell becomes a zone/state of lowered structural entropy constant, due to the structural deficit created by water. This gives the cell; zone/state, an extra natural push to evolve; extra push to increase protein entropy. But it will still remain under the constraint that water will continue to pack the protein toward lower entropy.

Since water will continue to ball up the proteins, the only good ways to increase protein entropy is to modify the protein, so the final state is higher in entropy; add a reactive site, and/or slight structural improvements; amino acid sequence change. This will not form a new species, but adds the potential for directed change on the various parts, until the entire cellular state, increases entropy; quantum step upward to a new state; species.

You forgot the effect of the sun on the earth. systemically definitional failure.

 

[Argentbear]

The conceptual problem, that the current theory of evolution makes, is the black box math, due to the very natue of its random assumption, does not allow a goal to occur; math bias. If you assume random, so you can properly apply the statistical model, no goal is possible by the default, due to your base math assumptions. This puts the cart before the horse. The life science are vested in black box assumptions and they are stuck in a self fulfilling prophesy; defaults to no goal is possible. Has to have side effects.

Wow there is so much wrong here i don't even know where to start

First it's laughable for someone who has repeatedly been shown to not understand the theory of evolution to then comment on evolutions "conceptual problem"

Second evolution isn't random. This is a pretty common false claim based on a ridiculous false dichotomy that a system has to be either random or controlled by an external intelligence. Mutations are not completely random. We are finding that certain genomic regions are more prone to mutations due to factors like DNA structure and repair mechanisms, meaning the occurrence of mutations are influenced by the surrounding DNA sequence.

Factor's in the environment and in the organism and it's survival needs determine if a given is beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism. Beneficial mutations increase adaptability and survival and are passed on to future generations. A common example woudl be the mutation some people have for lactose tolerance. When this mutation developed it provided those who carried the mutation to have access to a calorie rich food source meaning they ate better, lived longer and had healthier children.

Evolution is not random it is self regulating

I look at evolution, as connected to the 2nd law and entropy. This 2nd law states that entropy has to increase. This term, " increase" is not random since if entropy was random, it could spontaneously decrease or increase. But the 2nd law says it has to increase, which implies a sense of a single direction. This law; sense of positive direction, supersedes any black box assumption. Black box is not a law of science but a math tool assumption. I am comfortable following the laws of science.

You have mangled the second law. Go look it up and see what it actually says

 

[Valjean]

The conceptual problem, that the current theory of evolution makes, is the black box math, due to the very nature of its random assumption, does not allow a goal to occur; math bias. If you assume random, so you can properly apply the statistical model, no goal is possible by the default, due to your base math assumptions. This puts the cart before the horse. The life science are vested in black box assumptions and they are stuck in a self fulfilling prophesy; defaults to no goal is possible. Has to have side effects.

But considering the mechanisms involved, how could there be a goal?
Random? -- Definitely not. There may be randomness in the mutational and reproductive variation, but after that the variants are cherry-picked, with beneficial variants increasing in the population while deleterious ones are weeded out -- all unconsciously and without a goal.

Assumptions? No -- Conclusions, based on repeated observation and testing.
The observations come first, hypothetical explanations are made, then they attempt to falsify them and invite others to criticize both the hypotheses and the testing, and to try repeating the tests themselves. Only after multiple, failed attempts to find fault in a hypotheses is it assumed to be correct.
It's religion that puts the cart before the horse and begins with assumptions.

I look at evolution, as connected to the 2nd law and entropy. This 2nd law states that entropy has to increase. This term, " increase" is not random since if entropy was random, it could spontaneously decrease or increase. But the 2nd law says it has to increase, which implies a sense of a single direction. This law; sense of positive direction, supersedes any black box assumption. Black box is not a law of science but a math tool assumption. I am comfortable following the laws of science.

Entropy is also what is called a state variable. This means any state of matter has a fixed measurable amount of measured entropy; constant, that characterizes that state, sort of like a finger print. For entropy to increase, these state values also have to increase, forming a new state of higher fixed entropy.

In the chat below of entropy value, water going from liquid to gas increases its entropy constant; new state. Notice diamond; right top, has the lowest entropy, since it is so simple being a uniform matrix of tetrahedrally bonded carbon; perfectly simple and not complex. Graphite is more uniform in 2-D simple and a higher entropy due to the slight increase in complexity its z-variable, brings. Graphite is slippery due to the easier z-axis shear planes.

A cell can also be considered an integrated entropic state, and evolution, driven by an entropy increase, that will form a new state of higher entropy constant; evolution means an increase in the entropy state. If we add O2 and CO2 gases to liquid water, the average entropy of this state solution of water, will increase. Metabolism has an extended entropy affect; O2 and CO2 in water. If we were to metabolizes iso-octane down to CO2, we increase entropy, drastically, due to the entropy state weight of all the CO2 molecules we will make. Such goals could be anticipated by evolution.

The water and oil effect causes water to pack and fold protein lowering their entropy; lower complexity. The protein would be more complex all stretched out wiggling like worms. Water packs, folds and squeezes them into a little ball state. That creates entropic potential or creates a state of lowered entropy, opposite the 2nd law. The hydrogen bonding of water is strong enough to do this. With all protein treated this way by water, the cell becomes a zone/state of lowered structural entropy constant, due to the structural deficit created by water. This gives the cell; zone/state, an extra natural push to evolve; extra push to increase protein entropy. But it will still remain under the constraint that water will continue to pack the protein toward lower entropy.

Since water will continue to ball up the proteins, the only good ways to increase protein entropy is to modify the protein, so the final state is higher in entropy; add a reactive site, and/or slight structural improvements; amino acid sequence change. This will not form a new species, but adds the potential for directed change on the various parts, until the entire cellular state, increases entropy; quantum step upward to a new state; species.

No, you misunderstand entropy. Life exists in a closed and energetic system.

 

[YoursTrue]

Who's taking about "magic" other than you? Can't you stay on topic?

Well there is a discussion about evolution and Mary and Jesus -- then myth and magic by some -- my reaction right now, and I have respected you for the most part, Metis -- either Mary had sexual intercourse before she married Joseph or she did not. So no, evolution theory is part of the discussion regarding this. I know what some think about Mary -- but no need to go into that now, right? It's ok, thank you for the discussion, regardless of my questions about evolution, answers from some have really helped.