Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Why?
the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.
The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.
I mean more than before. LOL!
No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.
Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.
11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:
A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.
For clarification: that is tendency and in the long run. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this law is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene hitch a ride with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant hitches a ride and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]
Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists
This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.
No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.:
Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
Why male and female?
more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Why?
the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.
The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.
I mean more than before. LOL!
No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.
Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.
11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:
A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.
For clarification: that is tendency and in the long run. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this law is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene hitch a ride with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant hitches a ride and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]
Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists
This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.
not yet formulated, biological law
Like I said, making shit up.
more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Why?
No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.:
Why was I so sure you would cut and paste something so utterly absurd?
Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
Why male and female?
Seemed like a good way to combine DNA.
Can you come up with a better one?
No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.:
Why was I so sure you would cut and paste something so utterly absurd?
Ok then explain to me how the observation of degeneration is absurd ?
No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.
Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.
11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:
A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.
For clarification: that is tendency and in the long run. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this law is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene hitch a ride with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant hitches a ride and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]
Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists
This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.
not yet formulated, biological law
Like I said, making shit up.
more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Why?
So observed facts are making shit up ?
A theory is that making shit up ?
Or is it you have a problem with me calling degeneration a law ?
Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
Why male and female?
Seemed like a good way to combine DNA.
Can you come up with a better one?
Wow a thinking natural process
There is no requirement for a "thinking natural process"whatever that means. The are advantages to pairing as a means of furthering chances of survival for offspring.Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.
Why male and female?
Seemed like a good way to combine DNA.
Can you come up with a better one?
Wow a thinking natural process
Maybe you should quit looking for something to jump on and simply discuss the issues.
If you want to have a discussion, accuracy is important. It is not accurate to say that plants were created for us to eat, because most plants are not edible, and most of the plants we eat, we created.
most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?
If you want to have a discussion, accuracy is important. It is not accurate to say that plants were created for us to eat, because most plants are not edible, and most of the plants we eat, we created.
most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?
I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:
Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.
I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?
If you want to have a discussion, accuracy is important. It is not accurate to say that plants were created for us to eat, because most plants are not edible, and most of the plants we eat, we created.
most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?
I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:
Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.
I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?
most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?
I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:
Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.
I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?
He'll be back after his poison ivy salad lunch.
most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?
I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:
Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.
I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?
so ancient corn and grain was non-edible..lol
I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:
Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.
I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?
so ancient corn and grain was non-edible..lol
Red Herring.
I said most plants that we eat today we created. Example:
Corn's ancestor----------------------- Modern corn.
I could go on for pages. Do you really need me to in order to be convinced?
He'll be back after his poison ivy salad lunch.
mmm Ivy..now thats good eats
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcGXNEU4nso]Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea) ~ LuminEarth.com's How to Identify Wild Edible & Medicinal Plants - YouTube[/ame]
he idea of degeneration goes back to the 18th century, and had significant influence on science, art and politics from the 1850s to the 1950s. These concepts meant that humanity's development was no longer fixed and certain, but could change and evolve or degenerate into an unknown future, possibly a bleak future that clashes with the analogy between evolution and civilization as a progressive positive direction.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.
is that why vegetables scream when you boil them?Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.
But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?
