The language that describes the universe is mathematics not english. The argument you propose has no foundation in what you are attempting to describe because grammatical language provides no axiomatic structure.
If I place hot water in one side of a box, and cold water in another, with a watertight divider between the sides (representing low entropy), and put it in a closet, and the temperature will even out. Place it in a closet, with a lightbulb on one side (representing an open system), and the temperature differential will be maintained, or increase, because it is not a closed system. You keep repeating yourself in a contrary way to the evidence. I just showed you the development of new genetic information, a brand new trait, and a significant one at that, that was not in any way present in the host population. "Horizontal" or "vertical" changes... the rest is all gobbbledegook. What's your science education? Have you taken college courses in any of the life or physical sciences?
Your understanding of breeding is lagging by about half a century. These days it goes far beyond simple recombination and recurrent selection, as is the case with molecular breeding. The varying rates of consistency we find is indeed predictable, but it in no way leads us to believe that markers and QTL's are at all confined within a particular species. The system you're using to rationalize 'hard wiring" is a method of identifying valuable QTL's which promise, and have been proven to be useful when transformed and introgressed into other species. The systematic transformations, which are done quite regularly, take segments of dna from one species and introduce it into the genome of another thereby increasing the complexity, enhancing it's phenotype as opposed to "ruining the breed" of the recipient species. Now obviously this does not meet the hyperbolic example of dogs giving rise to cats but it is unquestionably an increase in the genomic complex. The beauty of modern breeding is that we are no longer limited (nor has nature ever been) by species. Genetic transformations can and have been performed creating wide leaps across the Taxonomic hierarchy. In other words the donor and recipient in these transformations don't have to be closely related. eg. Bacteria dna ---> Plant genome. As for demonstrating the efficacy, well that's become quite cook book stuff. Simple field, greenhouse and laboratory trials. You "mean the observable..." The observable WHAT? Vague generalizations don't answer the question usfan. Dismissing the lizard and dinosaur hyperbole, it's absolutely not science fiction. As for increasing the chromosome number, (ploidy) It's quite common both in nature and by breeding intervention. Look up allopolyploid hybrid or allopolyploid speciation. Regarding your thus far undefined genetic barrier, look up interspecific hybridization. As for decreasing, look up crossover errors in meiosis. And if I recall, the monkey human chromosome discrepancy has already been explained to you. Your critique is nothing more than an elementary re-verbiage of creationist and ID fallacy accompanied by the caveat "I'm not a creationist." but you're quite right, you are not making any scientific claims at all. You're simply denying that which has been observed, repeated, reviewed, exploited, commercialized and put on your dinner plate.
You still have entropy in either of your examples. In the first one, energy is dissipating from the hot to the cold side (and further, outside the box). In the second, energy is still dissipating, but you continue to add it on one side, giving the appearance of equilibrium. But entropy is still taking place, you are just making it a longer term experiment, by adding a constant flow of energy. The sun is burning out, so the heat & light directed toward earth is part of the equilibrium seeking process. Life forms 'grab' some of it as it passes by, & very narrow climate ranges are produced by the ideal conditions in place during this stage of entropy. But that is just dumb luck, on our part, as these conditions are not common in the universe. But the system is still approaching equilibrium, & entropy is taking place, even though it takes a long time, & the window of life conditions is really quite small. It is not a closed system, & practically, in the universe, there are no closed systems. In matters of life, entropy is constantly happening, both in smaller eco systems, weather patterns, etc, & solar systems. Regarding 'brand new trait': It is still just variability.. horizontal, lateral rearranging of the genetic word.. it is not an increase in genetic complexity. It seems we are deadlocked with our views of this. My doubts have no effect on your position that this is valid proof of increasing complexity, & your presentation is not compelling for me to see any scientific evidence for it. There is probably not much more to say. We've both made our points, arguments, & rebuttals. I am content to let you believe what you wish, even though i am not convinced. I studied at the university, was a math major, & was a staunch evolutionist. But as i applied the scientific method to my studies, i began to doubt the certainty of evolution, as i was taught it. Over about a 2 year period, i moved from being very pro evolution, to believing the science was very flawed, & it was not a valid theory. This was over 30 yrs ago, & i have dabbled in origins since.. mostly as a hobby. No one pays me to do this, if that is what you're getting at.. I consider myself a scientist, a philosopher, & a logician, not necessarily in that order.. but i value the disciplines of each, & the nuances in the field of 'knowledge'. In my career, i have used the scientific method extensively. Engineering calculations, stress analysis, practical applications.. these things i used daily, & i see the value of empirical knowledge. But i also see where theory does not match reality, & where philosophy crosses the line into application. But this personal information is irrelevant, & is usually fished for as a fuel for ad hominems. My arguments stand on their own. I have heard the 'argument from authority' & those are not valid in a logical debate. There needs to be real evidence, not just assertions, that can be demonstrated to apply to the argument, for any refutation to occur.
Wrong. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not a process at all. It is an empirical statement about processes... but is not one itself. Wrong. The 2nd law applies to any process regardless of whether or not complexity is increasing, decreasing or staying the same. It applies to any process in which energy is being dispersed, gathered are left unchanged. And it is a statement of system tendency, not system destiny. Wrong. Burning gases are merely naturally occurring exothermic chemical reactions. There are also naturally occurring endothermic reactions. Neither have anything automatic to do with any change in system complexity. Wrong. They are undergoing natural (and diverse) patterns of natural nuclear evolution. The products of their "burning" are consistently of greater objective complexity than their inputs. And few burn out... most have end states far more spectacular than anything resembling "fizzling out." Some are. Some are not. Some do different things at different times. It is clear that you do not even know what that means. No. You're not. You are using a parody of a scientific concept and applying it arbitrarily, ignorantly and absurdly. Further, you do not appear to have a clue what "hypothesis" means. Hint: A law and a hypothesis are completely different things. To say that anything "counteracts" entropy further betrays a complete failure to understand what entropy is or what the second law means. Entropy is not a measure of order. Entropy is not a measure of complexity. Entropy is not a process, or a hypothesis, or a force that can be counteracted, or a permanent systemic tattoo. It is a measurable extensive physical property of thermodynamic systems just like mass or volume. Its unit of measure is energy/temperature. In any open system, its quantity can change in any direction. Living organisms, populations of living organisms, ecosystems, the planet earth, the solar system, the galaxy all are open systems. As the late "great" creationist A.E. Wilder-Smith told me in 1984, creationists "didn't know a thing about thermodynamics". They still don't. Neither do you.
This thread has become an interesting experiment. I could propose the question thusly: Can humans have a scientific discussion about origins without it devolving into a religious debate, filled with hysteria, & ad hominems? From my experience, the answer is NO. Very early on i was dealing with deflections, ad hominems, & assertions. The scientific method has not been followed, here. A few links were put up, & I examined them in detail, offering a clear rebuttal. Other objections were raised, though not with clear explanations, like when someone mentioned Ardipithecus Ramidus. I provided a very thorough rebuttal, showing there can be no definitive conclusion, as even the experts do not agree on the assumptions. The central part of my argument here has not been rebutted, or addressed. Instead, there has been: Deflection Distraction Demeaning Distortion Dismissal If you point out there are no arguments to address, you get: Bluffing Bullying Bloviating I fully expected this, as it is a pattern in any discussion about evolution. Why is that? 1. Evolution is a philosophy, with little basis in science. It's proponents pretend to be rational & scientific, & hold other philosophical views in great contempt, yet if that correlation is made to evolution, cries of 'Blasphemy!' and righteous indignation ensue. 2. The promoters of evolution are not scientists, respecting the scientific method. They are pseudo scientists, & have propaganda as their agenda, not scientific truth. They ridicule any enquiry, & bully & demean anyone who dares question the sacred tenets of their faith. 3. Truth is not the goal, but propaganda. Any approach to objective truth is immediately disrupted, & logical discussion becomes impossible. Arrogant assertions are made, using ridicule & dismissal, but no attempt at addressing the actual argument being made. Just about every debating fallacy is used to distract & deflect from the real issue. 4. Technical language is used to obfuscate, rather than enlighten. Complex definitions are constructed, focusing on minute details & technicalities. It is a bluff, used to appear 'smart', but simple examination of the words reveals only pompous bloviating, using obscure words to say nothing. The goal is not education, but indoctrination. It does not matter what part of the theory you examine, inevitably it brings out the radical jihadists, shouting 'Darwin Akbar!' & 'Death to the infidels!' I find the hysterical reaction very intriguing. Of course, they don't have scimitars, but they wield the toy light sabers that came with their darth vader costume in a very intimidating manner. I don't care what people believe. I'm not selling anything, or trying to promote any view or philosophy. I am an admirer of the scientific method, & thought it would be an interesting exercise to use it to examine some of the things we take for granted. Truth is not a democratic process. The scientific method does not care what people's religious beliefs are. If you propose a hypothesis, it needs evidence to support it. My challenge here stands. Provide ANY evidence that demonstrates a vertical change in complexity. Not color changes, or minor horizontal changes in variability. Show HOW you can go from 2 to 24 chromosomes, or 24 to 23. That is assumed & asserted, but it is scientifically impossible. Mutations do not do that, by observation.. only by theory. You can provide a link, to source your arguments, but don't just post a list of links, like that proves anything. Frame your own arguments, make your own rationale, & defend your own words. I'll probably just get more assertions, or some of the 'D' or 'B' words above, but i'm tired of repeating myself. Put up or shut up. Show me. If you don't have anything, admit it. Insulting me because your pet theory has no basis won't make it true. If you can't handle this kind of debate, or just long for reality show hysteria, do the rest of us a favor & go to threads where that is the goal. There are plenty of them around.
Or when is Mr usfan and those that hold science in such high regard going to address Piltdown man, or the lies of Embryonic Recapitulation ....( Google Ernst Heinrich Haeckel) or the many other instances of 'scientific' fraud? Its not just fraud. Science theory must be falsifiable which limits it to being a simple tool, nothing more. However many seculars use science as a high authority, something to point to as a vindicator of truth which is not in the capaticy of science when using it as a tool. reva
I don't get it. You do not support evolution of the species and you do support science? Evolution is supported by science (which ain't saying much lol). And you are anti-religion? Or don’t support the mixing of science and religion or metaphysics ? How do you explain the different species that now exist* and other things that are explained by science or religion? *Science claims that over 96% (I think it was 99% but I am working from memory) of species that once existed are now extinct. ** It was 99% !!! see; http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_life4.html reva
Ameriku, Are you familiar with the theory of endosymbiosis as an origin/precursor eukaryotic cell evolution?
Deflection. Does not address the OP. My inclusion of the nebraska man was an illustration on how evolutionists are so desperate for 'proof' that they become easy targets for scammers. It is easy. IF increasing complexity is so plainly evident, post the evidence. It should be overwhelming. Instead, REAL science says this does not happen. There are NO vertical movements in the genetic code, where chromosomes are added, subtracted. All we see is simple variability. Interesting points, but not directly relevant to the OP. I have used this same argument in an aside, to show the philosophical & religious arguments being used here, instead of any scientific data. Still, the question here is increasing complexity in life forms. No one has been able to demonstrate or provide evidence HOW this can happen, much less the continued assertions that it DID happen, millions of years ago. 1. I support science. I will employ the scientific method for my conclusions, & insist on evidence & sound reason. 2. Evolution is NOT supported by 'science'. That is an illogical statement. It is supported by many who CLAIM scientific authority, but unless you prove the hypothesis, it is not science. 'Science' is a broad subject, but i view science as a process involving the scientific method. Alien seeding can be 'science'. Looking for bigfoot or noah's ark can be science. All these broad claims that 'science says this,' or 'science says that', are irrelevant. 'Science' says nothing. It is a process by which we can give credibility to our opinions & discover truths about the universe. We can use these scientific disciplines, or merge it with philosophy & muddy the distinctions until any wild opinion becomes 'science'. 3. I am not anti religion. I believe people have diverse religious beliefs, & i accept that. I include atheism in that. 4. I don't support the mixing of science & 'religion or metaphysics'. Until or unless religious or metaphysical questions can be examined by the scientific method, they are not valid questions for 'science'. 5. 'Science' makes no such claim, people do. Science doesn't kill people, people kill people. It is a dispassionate method for discovering the truth about the universe, nothing more. IF someone wants to make a claim, or hypothesize about the nature of the universe, we have a method by which this can be done. This is all philosophical rule making for the basis for our opinions. A 'scientist' is one who uses this method to search for truth. Sometimes new evidence comes to change our views. A scientist cannot be dogmatic, & demand total submission to any arbitrary opinions or theories about the universe, but must be a constant seeker of truth.. always looking for new evidence, even if it upsets his carefully crafted views of reality.
The thing is in todays world we can not be experts in everything. I have a reasonable understanding palaeontology and astronomy. But ask me why a match lights up when struck and I have no idea. So when the match works I have to defer to the higher authority of science because the match doesn't light up because of magic. Pilltdown man was a success because the scientists involved thought they'd been presented with something they wanted to exist. Outside of England the skull was dismissed almost immediately. With one US catalog describing the find as "Anomalist discovery of uncertain origins". Basically what they found didn't make sense, where it was found didn't make sense and how it was found didn't make sense. Even at the time, those involved with Piltdown Man where circumventing scientific principles in the handling of the specimen. No one could gain access to the original find, so no one could double check the original assumptions about the skull. This soon began to throw red flags among their peers. What was the big secret, why was this find being treated so differently. The obvious answer was there was something to hide.
Then why did you introduce Nebraska Man into the thread. And why do you avoid the conclusion the find presents. Why is Nebraska Man no longer a part of the story of evolution. If the theory is treated like a religion and we are all it's followers. Why did someone blaspheme by showing what the find actually was. Why was the blasphemers opinion and findings accepted. Why was the blasphemer the exact group of people you a railing against - Scientists
More deflection. Address the OP. Show me evidence for the claim of increasing complexity, rather than deflections & diversions. You want to derail the conversation, & focus on minutia, rather than be scientific & deliberate in this matter. Your cries of 'Blasphemy!' about your sacred beliefs are not valid scientific proofs of your claim. I'll wait... but i won't put up with the constant deflections, distortions, & demeaning insults forever. I'm sure this is your goal, to frustrate any scientific enquiry & keep your propaganda intact. You may win the battle, but reality has a way of providing evidence for thinking people, & the scientific method still works, even if it has been co-opted by religious propagandists.
I am learning Sure. Now you can experience being alive to even witness the evolutions. Heck just coming to terms with 'evolution' tooks 1000's of years of evolving words and understanding, to even consider it. Lot's of evidence of both scientific method and 'evidence' just by observing an embryo develop from a single celled egg/sperm combination. The evidence is equally applicable to all 'lives' of the human species and the integrity to observe evidence over belief, is 'the scientific method' in itself. being honest with the self, is the first step more facts and logic, that life came from the 'oooze' versus 'created' from nothing, in any sense!
It seems i cannot reply or debate with the posters in this thread without being infracted. My points stand, if anyone wants to address them. If i point out inconsistency, or illogical, deflecting posts, i get warned for 'attacking' other members.. very ironic.. Anyway, you guys can pile on. I might drop in in the next few days to see if it is on topic, or if the goal of repressing truth & enquiry has succeeded. Good job on derailing the thread. We can't have any scientific enquiry or critique of these things.. any way to stop it must be employed.
You have derailed your own thread - You admit as much by not addressing why you introduced Nebraska Man into the discussion
Of course. As far as the organelles mitochondria and chloroplasts are concerned, it is far more than theory. Few competent biologists doubt their origin as original independent prokaryotes,
The evidence for the existence of evolution is as incontrovertible and obvious as the evidence for the existence of gravity. That life forms change over time has been known since before written history. Given the sheer enormity of the scope of evidence, no rational person can deny that evolution happens - which of course doesn't prevent irrational people from denying it for religious reasons. Which is why, if we're talking about whether life forms change over time, this cannot be a scientific discussion, any more than whether gravity exists is a question of physics. The question of mechanisms, that is, of what causes gravity to exist and life forms to change, gets us into the area of scientific theory. With respect to gravity, we have two excellent theories about the causes - Einstein's theory of relativity, and the theory of quantum mechanics. And the problem is, these two theories are mutually exclusive - they cannot both be true. A century of research hasn't solved this problem. With the theory of evolution, the problem is different - there are lots of separate parts of the theory, which are not mutually exclusive. They all seem to be true; that is, the number of causes for life forms to change is quite extensive, and the details involved in those causes even more extensive. Gravity can be measured cleanly and with great precision - but not understood very well. Evolution can be understood quite clearly, but biology is so variable and messy that any reasonably comprehensive explanation must include "random" mutation combined with selection, and genetic drift, and stochastic models, and trends and tendencies and probabilities. And this gets us into another problem. The sheer scope of these details, the breadth of variation and variety of processes, means that individual studies in any useful detail are limited to looking at individual molecules of paint to understand the entire mural. While it's possible to take literally millions of individual studies and integrate them into a more general understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, these generalizations are easy to dismiss as "mere assertions", especially by those incapable of grasping the individual studies or even learning the terminology. As an analogy, we might find "wind" intuitive - we walk outside and our hat blows off. But how do we counter the accusation that "wind" is just a figment of our imaginations, an assertion born of ideology? We could get right down to indivual air molecules and measure their velocity one by one, only to be scolded that individual air molecules are not "wind". And similarly, individual offspring are not evolution, and individual transcriptions are not evolution, and individual fossils are not evolution. As I wrote earlier, individual steps are not a "journey". Each of those examples can show tiny individual changes, or tiny trends, or isolated examples. Can all of these pointillistic minutiae be combined and extrapolated to explain how life forms change over time? Well, yes, absolutely. It would be religious to deny it. Which is why these discussions devolve into religion. The science is beyond solid.
I find it fascinating and with a great deal of potential in breeding. Between 1998 and 2000 I developed a crude field technique for mitochondrial transformations using a variant of the gene gun technique. It was a down and dirty method resulting in high mortality rates but we were successful in transforming normal cytoplasms into cytoplasmic male steriles. F0 individuals expressing sterility were hand crossed with their isolines. Subsequent selection and maintenance through the F3 generation stabilized the trait. The process was sped up, using counter season plantings in Costa Rica. Proof of concept came in the F4 generation when I successfully restored fertility using known CMS restorer lines in hybrid crosses. The idea at the time was to speed up the development of A-lines in CMS hybrid breeding and eliminate the need for backcrossing. However the selection and reselection process required to stabilize the trait proved to take as much time as it would to achieve the same results by backcrossing. Recognizing the greater potential in the area of transgenics, my partners and I applied for a patent but as it turned out, we were in the process of selling our company and in doing so we transferred ownership of all intellectual property to the parent company and they failed to maintain the application. Despite my passionate and often foot stomping, fist slamming insistence they dropped the project. Likewise, they 'poo poo-ed" my proposal to pursue efforts to develop mitochondrial transformations which would lead to maternally inherited transgenic traits. I'm sure you know the potential there.
Welcome back from you ban vacation.. I'm still not sure we have any common points of reference. To you, 'evolution' seems synonymous with 'life'. You equate the growth process with evolution, but it is not the same thing. I don't want to repeat myself, i already addressed the logical & scientific points. You would need to rebut those points to make this a debate/discussion. Otherwise, i have nothing to respond to, other than a dismissal & more assertions. I have, actually. It is something i've put a great deal of thought in, over the years. 'Why' is one of my favorite questions. Here are some of my theories: 1. Forums are owned & managed by humans. 2. Humans have biases & world views they wish to protect. 3. The status quo is easier to defend. 4. Popularity & growth of the forum is the goal, not scientific truth or enquiry. 5. The internet's growth was primarily in academic institutions, where the status quo & the scientific establishment reign as arbiters of truth. Those are some general reasons that forums tend to support or promote status quo ideology, rather than support skepticism, scientific scrutiny, & the scientific method in general. In our specific case, it is less ideological, imo. The 'debaters' here tend to be more subtle in their insults.. needling, innuendo, implied insults & demeaning language are used, which the mods let slide. I tend to be more direct & forthright. If i see insults being employed, i tend to respond with the same, only i don't do it slyly, or leave any doubt as to my intent. I strive for clear communication, & prefer direct truth to vague innuendo or implications. Unfortunately for me, this is not seen as a virtue in forums. Subtle jabs, & more vague implied insults are accepted, whereas direct insults are infracted. It was my fault. I usually keep in mind that any assault on religious views are not taken well, & the results are always indignation, insults, dismissal, demeaning tones, & anything to deflect from the meat of the debate. It is a religious or philosophical issue, & people are usually very invested in their ideology. Any perceived attack on their sacred tenets are seen as personal attacks on their very existence. Anyway, that is a little off topic, but you asked. But for my part, i will make it a personal goal to only respond with logic & civility, even when that is not used toward me. I am reminded of the words of the great philosopher: Respond intelligently even to unintelligent treatment. ~Lao Tzu I tend to get caught up in the emotional responses & the irrational hysteria.. it was my fault for taking the demeaning posts personally, instead of seeing it as irrational responses to a rational debate. If this thread gets back on topic, i will endeavor to reply topically, & not be incited by any emotionalism on display.
Excellent points. I see the explanations for gravity as very similar, but with subtle differences. 1. Gravity is not assumed. It can be readily observed, measured, tested, & repeated. Only the deeper 'reasons' FOR gravity are debated. Evolution, however is only assumed. It cannot be observed, measured, tested, or repeated. The deeper reasons for evolution are debated as well, but only AFTER it is assumed. That is a significant difference in comparing the 2 theories. The central part of the theory is still the sticking point. There is ONE part of the theory, that all the rest hinges on. It is increased complexity. There is NO scientific explanation for it. It is assumed. ALL the other parts are irrelevant speculations, if the central assumption is not valid. It is just as simple as gravity, in this regard. Because of this, evolution CANNOT be 'understood quite clearly'. The very crux of the theory is an assumption. You cannot demonstrate, scientifically, HOW life can 'evolve' into increased complexity. We know it can move laterally, or with variability, but this does NOT compel us to assume it works vertically, & increases genetic information. No, it is easy to dismiss 'mere assertions' as mere assertions. This is not that complicated. Logic & science are very simple. You make the theory, test it, & make the conclusions. Facts & evidence. If you have none, you are left with assertions, which can easily be dismissed. There is no scientific process or mechanism that ties millions of observed, tested, lateral changes in genetic code to the leap to vertical changes in genetic complexity. That is a non sequitur. It is a leap of logic, not compelled by the evidence. Well, i think gravity is a better analogy than wind, but either of them still can be measured, repeated, & observed. Evolution cannot. It can only be assumed, then asserted. That is why it seems difficult to defend & promote. My constant insistent to show me ONE bit of scientific evidence for vertical changes in a life form can only be dismissed. There is NO science behind it. It seems the goal is to deflect from the central claim by throwing in 'millions of experiments' that do not prove the hypothesis, & only distract from the central issue. If you can get to the detail of 'individual air molecules', to use your analogy, you would have some evidence. But it cannot be done minutely, nor in an overview. All you have is the basic claim of increasing complexity, asserted over & over, assumed to be true, then fantastic scenarios constructed around it to show it's validity. I do not see it. You have all your minute points of detail, all doing the same thing: Micro changes in genetic structure. There is horizontal movement, only. The genetic code does not allow vertical changes in complexity. You can observe millions or billions, or trillions of genetic variability, but this does NOT compel a conclusion that these life forms move vertically. That is a leap of faith... a non sequitur. A scientist has to PROVE this for it to be valid. You can double the numbers, but they still do not prove the claim. They only prove variability WITHIN the life form. Now if you wish to believe this, i have no problem with that. But that becomes a matter of opinion & belief.. a religious question, as you mentioned.
