Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[orogenicman]

That is what I call you being willfully disruptive of threads.

no answer I see
.

No question, I see.

 

[Hollie]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

Why not? Do you have an aversion to the sexes?

Seriously, though:

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. There are survival advantages, especially among mammals which often rear their young as mating pairs. Conservation of energy and resources - protecting the young when a one of the pair hunts for food.

Why did the gawds experiment with asexual reproduction in the natural world?

Those gawds. They're such kidders.

 

[daws101]

Todd

Just adding energy does not produce order. Evolution is a solely a random process what happens with random processes in a system ? it will increase entropy. Yes energy is added to earth but unusable energy can and does produce harm.

Except that evolution is not a random process, because its primary forcing, natural selection, is not random.

Copying errors and breaks in Dna strands are not random ?

Natural selection can produce both complexity or a less adapted organisms and that is not random ?

is there any credible non creationist evidence that proves Natural selection can't do both?

 

[daws101]

That would seem to be evidence for purposeful design. where would we be without plants and the sun ?

Bacteria in to me,you can prove this how ?

You're now contradicting yourself. You just pointed to photosynthesis as evidence if that energy was not ordered so it could do work ,it would also harm the plants.

Would you like to compare mutations by the numbers. All the beneficial mutations you can confirm vs the harmful mutations that can be confirmed ?

That would seem to be evidence for purposeful design.

You skipped a few steps there. LOL!

where would we be without plants and the sun ?

Hungry and in the dark?

You're now contradicting yourself.

No, just contradicting you.

You just pointed to photosynthesis as evidence if that energy was not ordered so it could do work

ESL? Photosynthesis shows you don't understand the 2nd Law.

Would you like to compare mutations by the numbers.

As soon as you admit your 2nd Law error, we can try to move the discussion forward.

I understand it you however don't understand photosynthesis.

The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories

edited for pseudo scientific content religious bias, and wall of text.

Charles B. Thaxton is an intelligent design author and Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Thaxton earned a doctorate in physical chemistry from Iowa State University. He went on to complete post-doctorate programs in the history of science at Harvard University and the molecular biology laboratories of Brandeis University.

 

[daws101]

Todd.

The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories


CHAPTER 8
Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life

edited for pseudo scientific content religious bias, and wall of text.

 

[daws101]

Continued-

The Mystery of Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories


CHAPTER 9
Specifying How Work Is To Be Done


Specifying How Work Is To Be Done

edited for pseudo scientific content religious bias, and wall of text.

 

[daws101]

Todd why do you have a problem acknowledging the 2nd law all around us ?

econd Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?




Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

edited for pseudo scientific content religious bias, and wall of text.

 

[daws101]

OMFG! You owe me a new keyboard.
What do you feel it is that I don't understand about it?
In your own words, I don't feel like sifting thru the wall of text that you no doubt don't understand.

You wanted the argument from the creationist point of view of concerning the 2nd law and how it affects evolution you have it. The points you take exception to we can discuss. I am not gonna continue exchanging jabs with you let's talk about the issues.

edited for pseudo scientific content religious bias, and wall of text.

 

[daws101]

Except that evolution is not a random process, because its primary forcing, natural selection, is not random.

Copying errors and breaks in Dna strands are not random ?

Natural selection can produce both complexity or a less adapted organisms and that is not random ?

Copying errors in DNA strands are not a result of natural selection. Those are mostly random. There is nothing random about natural selection. It is exactly like artificial selection with two exceptions - the time scale of the changes, and the driving mechanism, which in the former is primarily a result of changes in an organism's environment. Natural selection doesn't support less adapted organisms. They tend to die off, leaving the better adapted organism to reproduce. Natural selection does produce more complexity. It also produces less complexity. The issue isn't whether or not an organism is more complex. The issue is does its complexity (or simplicity) give it a survival and reproductive advantage within the environment in which it finds itself?

We have artificially selected animals for thousands of years. Nature has done essentially the same thing for billions of years. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

bump! might as well bump! go ahead and bump!....paraphrased from van halen's jump!

 

[daws101]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

more proof that some question are stupid!

 

[daws101]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Copying errors and breaks in Dna strands are not random ?

Natural selection can produce both complexity or a less adapted organisms and that is not random ?

Copying errors in DNA strands are not a result of natural selection. Those are mostly random. There is nothing random about natural selection. It is exactly like artificial selection with two exceptions - the time scale of the changes, and the driving mechanism, which in the former is primarily a result of changes in an organism's environment. Natural selection doesn't support less adapted organisms. They tend to die off, leaving the better adapted organism to reproduce. Natural selection does produce more complexity. It also produces less complexity. The issue isn't whether or not an organism is more complex. The issue is does its complexity (or simplicity) give it a survival and reproductive advantage within the environment in which it finds itself?

We have artificially selected animals for thousands of years. Nature has done essentially the same thing for billions of years. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

then explain this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aj4PTEl6Q]Family Matters - Dueling Accordions - YouTube[/ame]

Looks like a skill that will make reproduction unlikely.

I predict that gene will die out......

 

[Intense]

Thread Pruned and Reopened. Copy and Pastes need to be short in content, post only enough to make your point, The Link is there both for verification and elaboration. Thank You.

 

[daws101]

I don't know about anybody else but YWC owes me a new mouse!
the wheel is still smoldering !

 

[eots]

Copying errors in DNA strands are not a result of natural selection. Those are mostly random. There is nothing random about natural selection. It is exactly like artificial selection with two exceptions - the time scale of the changes, and the driving mechanism, which in the former is primarily a result of changes in an organism's environment. Natural selection doesn't support less adapted organisms. They tend to die off, leaving the better adapted organism to reproduce. Natural selection does produce more complexity. It also produces less complexity. The issue isn't whether or not an organism is more complex. The issue is does its complexity (or simplicity) give it a survival and reproductive advantage within the environment in which it finds itself?

We have artificially selected animals for thousands of years. Nature has done essentially the same thing for billions of years. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

then explain this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9aj4PTEl6Q]Family Matters - Dueling Accordions - YouTube[/ame]

Looks like a skill that will make reproduction unlikely.

I predict that gene will die out......

good lord willing...

 

[Youwerecreated]

The second law of thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, in the physical universe. Yet biological evolution involves a hierarchical progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems, seemingly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.

There is no contradiction.

The burning of gasoline, converting energy "rich" compounds (hydrocarbons) into energy "lean" compounds, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20), is a second illustration of this principle.

Excellent! Let's use glucose, CO2 and H2O is our talk.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe (or any isolated system therein) is increasing; i.e., the energy of the universe is becoming more uniformly distributed

Excellent!

An open system is one which exchanges both energy and mass with the surroundings.

Great! Sounds like the Earth, or a plant.

In living plants, the energy flow through the system is supplied principally by solar radiation. In fact, leaves provide relatively large surface areas per unit volume for most plants, allowing them to "capture" the necessary solar energy to maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This solar energy is converted into the necessary useful work (negative Se in equation 7-11) to maintain the plant in its complex, high-energy configuration by a complicated process called photosynthesis. Mass, such as water and carbon dioxide, also flows through plants, providing necessary raw materials, but not energy. In collecting and storing useful energy, plants serve the entire biological world.

Holy crap! He just refuted your original claim.
I see no problem with this from the evolutionary side of the argument.

So why is your original claim correct and your source incorrect?

While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics

Check it out, he's calling you irrational!

No he didn't. You didn't grasp my argument.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The second law of thermodynamics suggests a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity, in the physical universe. Yet biological evolution involves a hierarchical progression to increasingly complex forms of living systems, seemingly in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.

There is no contradiction.

The burning of gasoline, converting energy "rich" compounds (hydrocarbons) into energy "lean" compounds, carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H20), is a second illustration of this principle.

Excellent! Let's use glucose, CO2 and H2O is our talk.

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe (or any isolated system therein) is increasing; i.e., the energy of the universe is becoming more uniformly distributed

Excellent!

An open system is one which exchanges both energy and mass with the surroundings.

Great! Sounds like the Earth, or a plant.

In living plants, the energy flow through the system is supplied principally by solar radiation. In fact, leaves provide relatively large surface areas per unit volume for most plants, allowing them to "capture" the necessary solar energy to maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This solar energy is converted into the necessary useful work (negative Se in equation 7-11) to maintain the plant in its complex, high-energy configuration by a complicated process called photosynthesis. Mass, such as water and carbon dioxide, also flows through plants, providing necessary raw materials, but not energy. In collecting and storing useful energy, plants serve the entire biological world.

Holy crap! He just refuted your original claim.
I see no problem with this from the evolutionary side of the argument.

So why is your original claim correct and your source incorrect?

While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics

Check it out, he's calling you irrational!

No he didn't. You didn't grasp my argument.

Restate your argument, in your own words, 100 words or less and I'll make it clear he did.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.