How Old Is The Earth?

[ChesBayJJ]

[

Sorry, but you are the one who believes in fringe nonsense. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. That states, closed systems degrade and decline over time. The generational genetics of every living thing we've ever studied, demonstrates this law clearly. This is in direct contradiction with what supposedly happens in Darwinian evolution.

It is your use of the issue of the laws of thermodynamics as a counter to evolution that shows you to be a fraud and poseur. The creationist's claims about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as proof that evolution is wrong are one of the most discredited arguments they make.

The reason why the arguments are wrong is very simple. You should be able to understand it yourself.


Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

See if you can find the flaw and get back to me.

 

[Mudda]

You provide no substantive discussion and I've tried.

Well it's because you're a hard head who thinks he knows it all. If you had been around in Newton's day, you would have been the asshole who panned his theory of light and color because of your stubborn know-it-all attitude. White light was pure light... that's what Science said and you would have rejected anyone suggesting anything else.

We are all the time running into quandaries which challenge our conventional wisdom... things we thought were "scientific facts of physics" for centuries have to be revisited. It's not as correct as we thought. I haven't looked it up but I believe the current estimate of 4.563 billion years is a relatively new calculation. How do we know it is any more true than previous estimations? How do you know that the methods used are 100% reliable and there can be no chance of error? I mean... if you had a rock that was engraved with "I made this rock 4 billion years ago ~ Love God" And you tested that and sure enough, it turns out to be 4 billion years old... okay. But unless you have a known control variable, you are going to be estimating.

The tests done used radioactive decay methods... again, relatively new science within the last 70-80 years. Are you confident enough to think it's the best science humans will ever obtain?

Actually the opposite is true, you are the hardhead that clings to your beliefs. I have confidence that the smartest people on Earth for the last 150 years have figured a lot of this stuff out, have tested it by endless experimentation, and proven it sound. I rely on them.

You rely on 'who knows we'll never know anything for sure'. Which is bad for heart patients because all those heart surgeons are saving lives based on faulty conclusions.

We're done Newman, your thinking is a closed loop.

No, I am not the hardhead clinging to his beliefs. I admitted I am not certain about the age. You and your Mudda want to pound fists on the table like little Fascists and demand that I am wrong and you know precisely the age. But even the people you have so much FAITH in, admit that the number is an estimation.

Here's where I think our problem lies... You and your Mudda have replaced God with Science. You now worship at the alter of Science instead of God. This is why your faith in Science is so strong and it's difficult for you to accept your religion could be wrong. You get easily offended if someone challenges your doctrine.

You claim that we've tested it by endless experimentation, which is obviously untrue. If experimenting is endless it means it's still happening. No doubt there probably are some scientists still testing and experimenting with regard to the age of Earth... but why would they, if they knew for certain? You don't believe in endless testing... you believe testing ended the day someone proclaimed their estimate of 4.563 billion years, and now that is established fact.

I don't know what point you're getting at with the heart surgeon but it's a good thing you're not a heart surgeon. I would much rather have a heart surgeon who put his faith in God and not Science. I don't even want an atheist doctor of any kind. Especially not little self-important assholes who assume estimations are irrefutable gospel.

If you can prove that estimation wrong, you'd have a case. But aside from the margin of error that any dating method has, you have nothing. Agreed that is not an exact number down to the month, day, hour, and second, but nobody, to my knowledge claims that it is. I know I didn't. It's 4.543 billion years old within whatever margin of error their dating method has. Prove otherwise.

Jeesh... I don't have to prove an estimate wrong to say it's possible that one day the estimate will prove to be wrong. You want to make the argument: Me claiming the Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old and you claiming it is because of a test. But that is not the argument you and I are having. You are trying to say it is a "FACT" that the universe is X years old... even though you can't give us a precise time. I am saying something different than you... I am saying that we BELIEVE the universe is 4.5 billion years old, we don't KNOW it for certain and it is not a FACT. Our tests seem to indicate this but our tests can be wrong. Now... MY view is that of science and the scientific world. YOUR view is a faith-based view rooted in your religious dogma of science.

There is absolutely nothing in Science which states that Theory A must be disproved before Theory B can be considered. If this were a standard of Science, nothing would have ever been discovered by it. You see... Theories are very difficult to disprove since they haven't actually been proven in the first place.

Your first clue you were stepping of the reason train was when you said "if you can't prove the estimation wrong..." An estimation, by it's own definition, admits it is potentially wrong.

The universe is around 13.8 billion years old, not 4.5. But I understand your confusion, you're not sure of anything anymore, not even if you should flush the toilet because your shit might not even be real.

 

[Boss]

[

Sorry, but you are the one who believes in fringe nonsense. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics and entropy. That states, closed systems degrade and decline over time. The generational genetics of every living thing we've ever studied, demonstrates this law clearly. This is in direct contradiction with what supposedly happens in Darwinian evolution.

It is your use of the issue of the laws of thermodynamics as a counter to evolution that shows you to be a fraud and poseur. The creationist's claims about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics as proof that evolution is wrong are one of the most discredited arguments they make.

The reason why the arguments are wrong is very simple. You should be able to understand it yourself.


Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

See if you can find the flaw and get back to me.

Sorry but life is a closed system. Your propaganda tries to pretend we are suddenly talking about Earth instead of life. However, the Earth is also a closed system. Some argue the entire universe is a closed system.

I am particularly unfavorable to your tone. You begin by attacking me with claims that I am a "fraud and poseur" and then you assume that I am somehow obligated to disprove your unproven theory! YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR THEORY TO ME!

I merely pointed out that your theory doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics. What we observe with living things, does follow the laws of thermodynamics. It's revealing how your immediate response to that is to go out and find some propaganda that secular idiots constructed specifically to "refute" those crazy chrishtuns! Oh you were well armed and ready with it, weren't you?

No sir... YOU are the fraud here.

 

[Boss]

Well it's because you're a hard head who thinks he knows it all. If you had been around in Newton's day, you would have been the asshole who panned his theory of light and color because of your stubborn know-it-all attitude. White light was pure light... that's what Science said and you would have rejected anyone suggesting anything else.

We are all the time running into quandaries which challenge our conventional wisdom... things we thought were "scientific facts of physics" for centuries have to be revisited. It's not as correct as we thought. I haven't looked it up but I believe the current estimate of 4.563 billion years is a relatively new calculation. How do we know it is any more true than previous estimations? How do you know that the methods used are 100% reliable and there can be no chance of error? I mean... if you had a rock that was engraved with "I made this rock 4 billion years ago ~ Love God" And you tested that and sure enough, it turns out to be 4 billion years old... okay. But unless you have a known control variable, you are going to be estimating.

The tests done used radioactive decay methods... again, relatively new science within the last 70-80 years. Are you confident enough to think it's the best science humans will ever obtain?

Actually the opposite is true, you are the hardhead that clings to your beliefs. I have confidence that the smartest people on Earth for the last 150 years have figured a lot of this stuff out, have tested it by endless experimentation, and proven it sound. I rely on them.

You rely on 'who knows we'll never know anything for sure'. Which is bad for heart patients because all those heart surgeons are saving lives based on faulty conclusions.

We're done Newman, your thinking is a closed loop.

No, I am not the hardhead clinging to his beliefs. I admitted I am not certain about the age. You and your Mudda want to pound fists on the table like little Fascists and demand that I am wrong and you know precisely the age. But even the people you have so much FAITH in, admit that the number is an estimation.

Here's where I think our problem lies... You and your Mudda have replaced God with Science. You now worship at the alter of Science instead of God. This is why your faith in Science is so strong and it's difficult for you to accept your religion could be wrong. You get easily offended if someone challenges your doctrine.

You claim that we've tested it by endless experimentation, which is obviously untrue. If experimenting is endless it means it's still happening. No doubt there probably are some scientists still testing and experimenting with regard to the age of Earth... but why would they, if they knew for certain? You don't believe in endless testing... you believe testing ended the day someone proclaimed their estimate of 4.563 billion years, and now that is established fact.

I don't know what point you're getting at with the heart surgeon but it's a good thing you're not a heart surgeon. I would much rather have a heart surgeon who put his faith in God and not Science. I don't even want an atheist doctor of any kind. Especially not little self-important assholes who assume estimations are irrefutable gospel.

If you can prove that estimation wrong, you'd have a case. But aside from the margin of error that any dating method has, you have nothing. Agreed that is not an exact number down to the month, day, hour, and second, but nobody, to my knowledge claims that it is. I know I didn't. It's 4.543 billion years old within whatever margin of error their dating method has. Prove otherwise.

Jeesh... I don't have to prove an estimate wrong to say it's possible that one day the estimate will prove to be wrong. You want to make the argument: Me claiming the Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old and you claiming it is because of a test. But that is not the argument you and I are having. You are trying to say it is a "FACT" that the universe is X years old... even though you can't give us a precise time. I am saying something different than you... I am saying that we BELIEVE the universe is 4.5 billion years old, we don't KNOW it for certain and it is not a FACT. Our tests seem to indicate this but our tests can be wrong. Now... MY view is that of science and the scientific world. YOUR view is a faith-based view rooted in your religious dogma of science.

There is absolutely nothing in Science which states that Theory A must be disproved before Theory B can be considered. If this were a standard of Science, nothing would have ever been discovered by it. You see... Theories are very difficult to disprove since they haven't actually been proven in the first place.

Your first clue you were stepping of the reason train was when you said "if you can't prove the estimation wrong..." An estimation, by it's own definition, admits it is potentially wrong.

The universe is around 13.8 billion years old, not 4.5. But I understand your confusion, you're not sure of anything anymore, not even if you should flush the toilet because your shit might not even be real.

Yes... please replace "earth" where I used "universe" in the previous post.
I made an error.

I am not confused. I am sure of all kinds of things. I base my assurances on faith. I'm not 100% certain of anything and neither are you.

What does "real" mean? Can you define it for us?

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Sorry but life is a closed system. Your propaganda tries to pretend we are suddenly talking about Earth instead of life. However, the Earth is also a closed system. Some argue the entire universe is a closed system.

I am particularly unfavorable to your tone. You begin by attacking me with claims that I am a "fraud and poseur" and then you assume that I am somehow obligated to disprove your unproven theory! YOU HAVE TO PROVE YOUR THEORY TO ME!

I merely pointed out that your theory doesn't follow the laws of thermodynamics. What we observe with living things, does follow the laws of thermodynamics. It's revealing how your immediate response to that is to go out and find some propaganda that secular idiots constructed specifically to "refute" those crazy chrishtuns! Oh you were well armed and ready with it, weren't you?

No sir... YOU are the fraud here.

Life is not a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Life evolves. You and I and the chimpanzee had a common ancestor that lived about six million years ago. The evidence is in our DNA, one of the strongest sets of evidence supporting evolution. So yes, Darwin didn't get it exactly right, mainly because there was a great deal he didn't know. But the gradual evolution of species in response to the pressures of natural selection is as solid a scientific theory as there is.

But this thread is about the age of the earth, so I'll leave that discussion to you and your friends here. 4.6 Billion years is a long time. See ya around.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Earth is not a closed system. We are being bombarded all the time with space debris. Shoot, scientists have even found a meteorite that came all the way from Mars.

 

[Boss]

Life evolves.

At a micro level, many species adapt changes over time, sometimes producing new species. This natural ability for life to be versatile and adapt to environment is not Darwinian Evolution.

You and I and the chimpanzee had a common ancestor that lived about six million years ago.

This is a theory, not a fact.

The evidence is in our DNA, one of the strongest sets of evidence supporting evolution.

No, it is the opposite. One of the strongest sets of evidence to refute Darwinian Evolution, or "macro-evolution" as it should correctly be called. DNA is a remarkable molecule found in every living cell of life. It contains line-for-line digital code in 4-bit... (our computers use binary 2-bit). It contains the information about everything that organism is or ever can be, or that it can ever reproduce.

IF we follow the Darwinian theory, at some point, worms need to grow legs. But the information for legs are not in it's DNA molecules. Nor is the information for wings or mammary glands... all those things are in the DNA of other life.

So yes, Darwin didn't get it exactly right, mainly because there was a great deal he didn't know.

He didn't get any of it right except natural selection.

But the gradual evolution of species in response to the pressures of natural selection is as solid a scientific theory as there is.

Again, adaptation in species due to natural selection is simply the versatile ability of life. The pressures of nature cannot rewrite or reconstruct DNA code. This is why 95% of the species of life are now extinct. Natural selection is no friend to Darwinian evolution.

 

[Boss]

Earth is not a closed system. We are being bombarded all the time with space debris. Shoot, scientists have even found a meteorite that came all the way from Mars.

Really? And this is stuff made of matter we've never known before in our system?

Look... there could be a massively long debate over what is or isn't a closed system. This is highly subjective and argued from different perspectives. When we are talking about the genetic hierarchy and biological aspects of a particular living organism, we are talking about a closed system. If you can't explain how a gene is effected by something outside of the organism, how is it not closed? A meteorite from Mars doesn't change this.

 

[IsaacNewton]

For those who aren't sure about...'things'...here are some friends you can feel right at home with.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

[AVG-JOE]

Life evolves.

At a micro level, many species adapt changes over time, sometimes producing new species. This natural ability for life to be versatile and adapt to environment is not Darwinian Evolution.

You and I and the chimpanzee had a common ancestor that lived about six million years ago.

This is a theory, not a fact.

The evidence is in our DNA, one of the strongest sets of evidence supporting evolution.

No, it is the opposite. One of the strongest sets of evidence to refute Darwinian Evolution, or "macro-evolution" as it should correctly be called. DNA is a remarkable molecule found in every living cell of life. It contains line-for-line digital code in 4-bit... (our computers use binary 2-bit). It contains the information about everything that organism is or ever can be, or that it can ever reproduce.

IF we follow the Darwinian theory, at some point, worms need to grow legs. But the information for legs are not in it's DNA molecules. Nor is the information for wings or mammary glands... all those things are in the DNA of other life.

So yes, Darwin didn't get it exactly right, mainly because there was a great deal he didn't know.

He didn't get any of it right except natural selection.

But the gradual evolution of species in response to the pressures of natural selection is as solid a scientific theory as there is.

Again, adaptation in species due to natural selection is simply the versatile ability of life. The pressures of nature cannot rewrite or reconstruct DNA code. This is why 95% of the species of life are now extinct. Natural selection is no friend to Darwinian evolution.

Evolution isn't some sort of mechanized process that life is being forced through... evolution is an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of proposition.

That's why we share the planet with some very ancient species, unchanged over time, as well as relative newcomers to the biosphere, like Monkeys.

 

[BreezeWood]

The universe is around 13.8 billion years old, not 4.5. But I understand your confusion, you're not sure of anything anymore, not even if you should flush the toilet because your shit might not even be real.

.

"But I understand your confusion" ...


and by your measurement, how old is the Inner Core of the Planet - or relevance to EARTH, the Aqua / Terra firma ?

by the way, the 4.5 billion standard is the solar system not the planet.

.

 

[Boss]

Life evolves.

At a micro level, many species adapt changes over time, sometimes producing new species. This natural ability for life to be versatile and adapt to environment is not Darwinian Evolution.

You and I and the chimpanzee had a common ancestor that lived about six million years ago.

This is a theory, not a fact.

The evidence is in our DNA, one of the strongest sets of evidence supporting evolution.

No, it is the opposite. One of the strongest sets of evidence to refute Darwinian Evolution, or "macro-evolution" as it should correctly be called. DNA is a remarkable molecule found in every living cell of life. It contains line-for-line digital code in 4-bit... (our computers use binary 2-bit). It contains the information about everything that organism is or ever can be, or that it can ever reproduce.

IF we follow the Darwinian theory, at some point, worms need to grow legs. But the information for legs are not in it's DNA molecules. Nor is the information for wings or mammary glands... all those things are in the DNA of other life.

So yes, Darwin didn't get it exactly right, mainly because there was a great deal he didn't know.

He didn't get any of it right except natural selection.

But the gradual evolution of species in response to the pressures of natural selection is as solid a scientific theory as there is.

Again, adaptation in species due to natural selection is simply the versatile ability of life. The pressures of nature cannot rewrite or reconstruct DNA code. This is why 95% of the species of life are now extinct. Natural selection is no friend to Darwinian evolution.

Evolution isn't some sort of mechanized process that life is being forced through... evolution is an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of proposition.

That's why we share the planet with some very ancient species, unchanged over time, as well as relative newcomers to the biosphere, like Monkeys.

Wow... this gets even MORE bizarre!

Okay... so let me try and wrap my mind around what is happening... Life is out there reproducing through natural selection and sometimes species can't evolve fast enough and become extinct, but other times, they evolve into completely different animals and live on?

Should see plenty of fossils of one thing trying to become another and failing. We should be finding all kinds of things... here's a lizard trying to turn into a mammal... here's a shellfish turning into a reptile... here's a half sheep- half dog thing... We see nothing like that in the fossil record. Species appear suddenly and then disappear.

I do like how you analyzed evolution as a proposition.... Like Mother Nature is making us a deal. "If we won't believe in that stinky old god stuff... I'll magically make things become whatever they need to be in order to make your theories work without a creator! Mind you, the magic won't work all the time, I'll decide when to use it but if you're not important I may let you go extinct....and don't bug me with stupid stuff... if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

 

[Boss]

and by your measurement, how old is the Inner Core of the Planet - or relevance to EARTH, the Aqua / Terra firma ?

I have another question... what baked the cake that IS earth? Okay... here is what we find... The core of the planet is unusually different than the mantle and crust. So at sometime after various clumps of minerals out in space came together to form our planet, something completely melted it. This is when the nickel and iron became our core and lighter minerals rose to the form the mantle and crust. Scientists have a hard time explaining how this happened but it seems obvious it did.

Another interesting thing... the oldest earth rock ever discovered is 4.2 billion years old. Tests revealed that when it was formed it was under water. So, now we have a real puzzler... the Earth is supposedly 4.5 billion years old but at 4.2 billion years, we had oceans? Of course, that's 300 million years to play with... not a small amount of time, but still... all the cooling has to happen... then something has to bring the water.... a lot of it.

Now there are all kinds of theories about how the water got here but none of them make much sense. Seems we got really lucky once again.

 

[Mudda]

Life evolves.

At a micro level, many species adapt changes over time, sometimes producing new species. This natural ability for life to be versatile and adapt to environment is not Darwinian Evolution.

You and I and the chimpanzee had a common ancestor that lived about six million years ago.

This is a theory, not a fact.

The evidence is in our DNA, one of the strongest sets of evidence supporting evolution.

No, it is the opposite. One of the strongest sets of evidence to refute Darwinian Evolution, or "macro-evolution" as it should correctly be called. DNA is a remarkable molecule found in every living cell of life. It contains line-for-line digital code in 4-bit... (our computers use binary 2-bit). It contains the information about everything that organism is or ever can be, or that it can ever reproduce.

IF we follow the Darwinian theory, at some point, worms need to grow legs. But the information for legs are not in it's DNA molecules. Nor is the information for wings or mammary glands... all those things are in the DNA of other life.

So yes, Darwin didn't get it exactly right, mainly because there was a great deal he didn't know.

He didn't get any of it right except natural selection.

But the gradual evolution of species in response to the pressures of natural selection is as solid a scientific theory as there is.

Again, adaptation in species due to natural selection is simply the versatile ability of life. The pressures of nature cannot rewrite or reconstruct DNA code. This is why 95% of the species of life are now extinct. Natural selection is no friend to Darwinian evolution.

Not everything will evolve to have legs you fucking moron, LOL!!!! A tree isn't going to sprout legs in the future and start walking around. Man, are you this dumb on purpose?

 

[Mudda]

Actually the opposite is true, you are the hardhead that clings to your beliefs. I have confidence that the smartest people on Earth for the last 150 years have figured a lot of this stuff out, have tested it by endless experimentation, and proven it sound. I rely on them.

You rely on 'who knows we'll never know anything for sure'. Which is bad for heart patients because all those heart surgeons are saving lives based on faulty conclusions.

We're done Newman, your thinking is a closed loop.

No, I am not the hardhead clinging to his beliefs. I admitted I am not certain about the age. You and your Mudda want to pound fists on the table like little Fascists and demand that I am wrong and you know precisely the age. But even the people you have so much FAITH in, admit that the number is an estimation.

Here's where I think our problem lies... You and your Mudda have replaced God with Science. You now worship at the alter of Science instead of God. This is why your faith in Science is so strong and it's difficult for you to accept your religion could be wrong. You get easily offended if someone challenges your doctrine.

You claim that we've tested it by endless experimentation, which is obviously untrue. If experimenting is endless it means it's still happening. No doubt there probably are some scientists still testing and experimenting with regard to the age of Earth... but why would they, if they knew for certain? You don't believe in endless testing... you believe testing ended the day someone proclaimed their estimate of 4.563 billion years, and now that is established fact.

I don't know what point you're getting at with the heart surgeon but it's a good thing you're not a heart surgeon. I would much rather have a heart surgeon who put his faith in God and not Science. I don't even want an atheist doctor of any kind. Especially not little self-important assholes who assume estimations are irrefutable gospel.

If you can prove that estimation wrong, you'd have a case. But aside from the margin of error that any dating method has, you have nothing. Agreed that is not an exact number down to the month, day, hour, and second, but nobody, to my knowledge claims that it is. I know I didn't. It's 4.543 billion years old within whatever margin of error their dating method has. Prove otherwise.

Jeesh... I don't have to prove an estimate wrong to say it's possible that one day the estimate will prove to be wrong. You want to make the argument: Me claiming the Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old and you claiming it is because of a test. But that is not the argument you and I are having. You are trying to say it is a "FACT" that the universe is X years old... even though you can't give us a precise time. I am saying something different than you... I am saying that we BELIEVE the universe is 4.5 billion years old, we don't KNOW it for certain and it is not a FACT. Our tests seem to indicate this but our tests can be wrong. Now... MY view is that of science and the scientific world. YOUR view is a faith-based view rooted in your religious dogma of science.

There is absolutely nothing in Science which states that Theory A must be disproved before Theory B can be considered. If this were a standard of Science, nothing would have ever been discovered by it. You see... Theories are very difficult to disprove since they haven't actually been proven in the first place.

Your first clue you were stepping of the reason train was when you said "if you can't prove the estimation wrong..." An estimation, by it's own definition, admits it is potentially wrong.

The universe is around 13.8 billion years old, not 4.5. But I understand your confusion, you're not sure of anything anymore, not even if you should flush the toilet because your shit might not even be real.

Yes... please replace "earth" where I used "universe" in the previous post.
I made an error.

I am not confused. I am sure of all kinds of things. I base my assurances on faith. I'm not 100% certain of anything and neither are you.

What does "real" mean? Can you define it for us?

I'm 100% certain that my house is real, that the trees outside my house are real, that I'm real, that all my stuff is real... You know why? Because I can touch them, see, them, smell them, and if i want, taste them. I'm also 100% sure that you need a mental health specialist, you have seriously issues.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Earth is not a closed system. We are being bombarded all the time with space debris. Shoot, scientists have even found a meteorite that came all the way from Mars.

Really? And this is stuff made of matter we've never known before in our system?

Look... there could be a massively long debate over what is or isn't a closed system. This is highly subjective and argued from different perspectives. When we are talking about the genetic hierarchy and biological aspects of a particular living organism, we are talking about a closed system. If you can't explain how a gene is effected by something outside of the organism, how is it not closed? A meteorite from Mars doesn't change this.

Genes can be damage, changed, effected, whatever term you want, by radiation. That is not a closed system.

But genetic change also occurs randomly with copying errors. Every time a cell divides. the chromosomes are copied. Despite very good error checking, sometimes errors occur. That is a closed system error.

 

[Boss]

Life evolves.

At a micro level, many species adapt changes over time, sometimes producing new species. This natural ability for life to be versatile and adapt to environment is not Darwinian Evolution.

You and I and the chimpanzee had a common ancestor that lived about six million years ago.

This is a theory, not a fact.

The evidence is in our DNA, one of the strongest sets of evidence supporting evolution.

No, it is the opposite. One of the strongest sets of evidence to refute Darwinian Evolution, or "macro-evolution" as it should correctly be called. DNA is a remarkable molecule found in every living cell of life. It contains line-for-line digital code in 4-bit... (our computers use binary 2-bit). It contains the information about everything that organism is or ever can be, or that it can ever reproduce.

IF we follow the Darwinian theory, at some point, worms need to grow legs. But the information for legs are not in it's DNA molecules. Nor is the information for wings or mammary glands... all those things are in the DNA of other life.

So yes, Darwin didn't get it exactly right, mainly because there was a great deal he didn't know.

He didn't get any of it right except natural selection.

But the gradual evolution of species in response to the pressures of natural selection is as solid a scientific theory as there is.

Again, adaptation in species due to natural selection is simply the versatile ability of life. The pressures of nature cannot rewrite or reconstruct DNA code. This is why 95% of the species of life are now extinct. Natural selection is no friend to Darwinian evolution.

Not everything will evolve to have legs you fucking moron, LOL!!!! A tree isn't going to sprout legs in the future and start walking around. Man, are you this dumb on purpose?

I don't know... maybe you are not grasping your own concept here, but if all life supposedly emerged from a single cell organism out of the primordial soup, or whatever... then all kinds of shit like that HAD to happen. At some point, a living thing had to change into another kind of living thing.... not just adapted within it's genus to form new species. How the hell else do you get from a single cell life form to billions of life forms?

I don't expect trees sprouting legs, but I do expect some kind of an explanation for why there are plants, fish, mammals, birds and reptiles. And I need more than someone's opinion. I need to see some scientific evidence.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Wow... this gets even MORE bizarre!

Okay... so let me try and wrap my mind around what is happening... Life is out there reproducing through natural selection and sometimes species can't evolve fast enough and become extinct, but other times, they evolve into completely different animals and live on?

Should see plenty of fossils of one thing trying to become another and failing. We should be finding all kinds of things... here's a lizard trying to turn into a mammal... here's a shellfish turning into a reptile... here's a half sheep- half dog thing... We see nothing like that in the fossil record. Species appear suddenly and then disappear.

I do like how you analyzed evolution as a proposition.... Like Mother Nature is making us a deal. "If we won't believe in that stinky old god stuff... I'll magically make things become whatever they need to be in order to make your theories work without a creator! Mind you, the magic won't work all the time, I'll decide when to use it but if you're not important I may let you go extinct....and don't bug me with stupid stuff... if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Again, your rant shows you don't really understand what you are talking about. What you seem to ignore is the very gradual change that occurs under evolution. Sure, there are periods when organisms can't adapt quickly and die off, as with the mass extinctions. And you are never going to see a between genus change in a fossil because that just doesn't happen - the process is gradual.

If I went back 2000 years to Roman times, I could produce a child with a woman. If she went back another 2000 years, she could produce a child with an Egyptian. And we could go back 2000 years at a time and continue reproducing. But if I went back three million years, I could not reproduce with an australopithesine, because that is a different genus.

Natural selection is slow, gradual change occurring over millions of years as very small genetic changes result in small improvements in survivability.

 

[Boss]

Genes can be damage, changed, effected, whatever term you want, by radiation. That is not a closed system.

Are you saying radiation is not a part of the system of life?

But genetic change also occurs randomly with copying errors. Every time a cell divides. the chromosomes are copied. Despite very good error checking, sometimes errors occur. That is a closed system error.

Exactly, and this is entropy happening... the opposite of what is proposed in Darwinian theory.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Genes can be damage, changed, effected, whatever term you want, by radiation. That is not a closed system.

Are you saying radiation is not a part of the system of life?

But genetic change also occurs randomly with copying errors. Every time a cell divides. the chromosomes are copied. Despite very good error checking, sometimes errors occur. That is a closed system error.

Exactly, and this is entropy happening... the opposite of what is proposed in Darwinian theory.

It is not the opposite of Darwinian theory. It is slow, gradual change. And I assume by your entropy comment, you see this as increasing order (or decreasing disorder, if you prefer) which you say is entropy happening. But there is nothing wrong with this. There is an external source of energy available to drive the system to a higher ordered state - either a metabolic source of energy in an animal, or the addition of solar energy (external to the earth system) in the case of a plant.