Prime Factor

[Guest]

@TG:

“Why “produce” kids, when they die anyway?”

Plenty of animal species produce lots of offspring to insure that at least some survive. Also, half a year is a long time for a female not to be working. Even pregant females today still have to work. Also the tribe and nurseries have to be taken accounted for (one surrogate mother taking care of several kids, which many tribes and animal species practiced). More work is needed though the advantages offset this (less work in the future). Even then the deathrates among births were quite high (as compared today). There are no assurances that once a women becomes pregnant, it will lead to a successful birth.

I didn’t claim that i was right, it was just a “could be”, just as your reply is mainly a “could have been”. The point is: we have a more or less 50/50 ratio. So, i expect that this has proven to be the “most successful” ratio for whatever reasons. Maybe the one i gave is part of that, maybe not. I think it is, but have not enough knowledge about the stone age tribal structure, survival ratios etc.

[quote
Here’s another question on order and disorder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. However, evolutionists say that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?

Because one is physics, and the other one is “macroscopic” biology (meaning not molecular biology). I your question really serious? The average macro-biologist does not have a clue about physics, he doesn’t need it. He is “counting legs”, but does not care wether the earth has a continual energy input from the sun or not. As this (for him) just “is” it is not taken into account. If you asked him the above question, he’d probably say, “well, the sun is providing that energy of course”. And he is right with that. But: it’s not needed for the theory (as it is obvious that without the energy input it wouldn’t work).

[TG Moses VI]

“I didn’t claim that i was right, it was just a “could be”, just as your reply is mainly a “could have been”. The point is: we have a more or less 50/50 ratio. So, i expect that this has proven to be the “most successful” ratio for whatever reasons. Maybe the one i gave is part of that, maybe not. I think it is, but have not enough knowledge about the stone age tribal structure, survival ratios etc.”

Fair enough

“The average macro-biologist does not have a clue about physics, he doesn’t need it.”

Our universe (as we know it) is based on the principles of physics, therefore if evolution conflicts with physics, then there is some need to question the it. So what is your answer to the question I gave above?

[Guest]

@TG:

“The average macro-biologist does not have a clue about physics, he doesn’t need it.”

Our universe (as we know it) is based on the principles of physics, therefore if evolution conflicts with physics, then there is some need to question the it. So what is your answer to the question I gave above?

There is no conflict.
The energy needed for the change (and not mentioned by the biologists) comes from the sun, as all life on this earth only exists because of the sun as an energy source.
That’s it.

(and i said that already in the post above :) )

[TG Moses VI]

@F_alk:

There is no conflict.
The energy needed for the change (and not mentioned by the biologists) comes from the sun, as all life on this earth only exists because of the sun as an energy source.
That’s it.
(and i said that already in the post above :) )

You point out that the Second Law is posses no conflict since the sun provides energy, which is also gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, making the earth an open system. However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. It should also be pointed out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur - only the application of directed energy will. The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

[Guest]

@TG:

@F_alk:

There is no conflict.
The energy needed for the change (and not mentioned by the biologists) comes from the sun, as all life on this earth only exists because of the sun as an energy source.
That’s it.
(and i said that already in the post above :) )

You point out that the Second Law is posses no conflict since the sun provides energy, which is also gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, making the earth an open system. However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. It should also be pointed out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur - only the application of directed energy will.

The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

What has the first to do with the second? You are right: THe earth is an open system, the universe is not. Having energy is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for reducing entropy.
Therefore, we only have to show that the suns energy plus the metabolism of living beings provide the sufficient condition.
Knowing a little bit of physics and molecular biology (not having my book for the later at hand though), i can’t see any problem there.
Please specify the problem you have with it a bit, maybe i can reply more specifically on that then :)

[TG Moses VI]

The 2nd Law states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionist say that order increases with time? Granted, there is energy (from the sun), however, without energy being directed, wouldn’t this violate the 2nd Law?

[Guest]

Well, the metabolism uses the energy to create order.
I think to explain that in total (a) my knowledge is not really sufficient and (b) it would take too much time and space here :), and © i am too lazy :D

[Guest]

Well, in a way, the sun is directed. Chloroplasts, reflecting light in the green spectrum, absorb light at other wavelengths. This is the right amount of energy to set off a reaction causing CO2 to ultimately be built into glucose.
The glucose is the next part of the equation - use of it through various metabolic pathways (glycolysis, pyruvate dehydrogenase, the Kreb’s cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation amoung others) provides the ATP (a high energy intermediate) required for DNA replication/transcription, translation (i.e. protein production) etc.
There is a kind of elegance to it.
For better or worse, no matter what you say, no matter what “evidence” you produce, there is absolutely no way that FinsterniS will consider it possible that there is any intelligence to creation.

quote: Woooooo…. That is very arrogant, very dogmatic. Like your religion was the good one, the other religion cannot answer thing your religion can…

That is not historicly valid. Polytheist was very strong, it answer all the things christianism was answering, it was only less superficial, there was a lot of gods, and people were praying for the gods they think was appopriate for them.

it was just not as beautiful as christianism, not as rigid, and they do not menace people. Also polytheist do not make such promise as eternal love, eternal happiness and thing like that. You clearly lack objectivity… Like i ask, if this is just a question of faith, without any logic, then why X religion is better than Y ?

Um FinsterniS, i thought we already clarified this. I am arrogant. My sisters have known that for years.
Also my point was that for Christians, Christianity has answered the most important of their questions. None of the religions i mentioned has provided a text like the Bible, or a relationship with a creator that compares to the one that Christianity offers (and describes). Historically Polytheism might appear valid, but it has nothing that would satisfy a Christian. And any chance you could give this whole “menacing people” a rest? I really don’t get that at all. Maybe you have met some weird people, but i don’t know anyone like that.
And yes, i clearly lack objectivity. So do you. So does everyone in the world, each according to his/her ideology.
The reason why X religion is better than Y might be answered by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Christianity answers the questions we ask late at night. It relates to many things that we feel, and it describes what we know inside in a way that is impossible to communicate with someone who can not relate.
Sure, i don’t know all of the answers, but my most important questions have been answered - in a personal way.

[cystic crypt]

obviously the above was me.

[TG Moses VI]

CC, brought up chloroplasts and the like.

So here’s another question to see if you can solve:
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

[FinsterniS]

@Anonymous:

Well, in a way, the sun is directed. Chloroplasts, reflecting light in the green spectrum, absorb light at other wavelengths. This is the right amount of energy to set off a reaction causing CO2 to ultimately be built into glucose.
The glucose is the next part of the equation - use of it through various metabolic pathways (glycolysis, pyruvate dehydrogenase, the Kreb’s cycle, and oxidative phosphorylation amoung others) provides the ATP (a high energy intermediate) required for DNA replication/transcription, translation (i.e. protein production) etc.
There is a kind of elegance to it.

Not directed; just perfect for the apparition of protein and ultimatly life… Anyway we don,t even know how life exatly start out; maybe from ashe, maybe from our sun, maybe it is just inherent to planets like ours…

For better or worse, no matter what you say, no matter what “evidence” you produce, there is absolutely no way that FinsterniS will consider it possible that there is any intelligence to creation.

That is an easy one, and i can say exactly the same thing…

And any chance you could give this whole “menacing people” a rest?

No because, it is too, historicly valid…

And yes, i clearly lack objectivity. So do you. So does everyone in the world, each according to his/her ideology.

Agreed, and i already tell that.

The reason why X religion is better than Y might be answered by “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Christianity answers the questions we ask late at night.

The fact it answer the good question is an argument for it ?

Sure, i don’t know all of the answers, but my most important questions have been answered - in a personal way.

Keep that personnal, that way everything is ok.

[Guest]

@TG:

CC, brought up chloroplasts and the like.

So here’s another question to see if you can solve:
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?

The first bacteria actually did not have an aerob metabolism, oxygen was poisonious to them, they produced that as their kind of “waste” and changed the atmosphere. Then, at some stage, a step in evolution has happened, and a bacteria started an aerob metabolism, which is much more efficient. Then later, an organism (probably a bacteria) joined a symbiosis with a chloroplast (the things in plants that do the photosynthesis, they actually have an own DNA like the mitochondria, which means they have been sole living beings before). THis was the birth of the first plant, so to say (except that plants of course have a different cell “outer layer” than bacteria and animals, but i don’t know where to place that chronologically).

[TG Moses VI]

You mentioned symbiosis and there are many examples of plants and animals which have a “symbiotic” relationship (they need each other to survive). How does evolution explain this?

[cystic crypt]

@TG:

You mentioned symbiosis and there are many examples of plants and animals which have a “symbiotic” relationship (they need each other to survive). How does evolution explain this?

supposedly as two beings come together they are more productive than the individual units were (for example, an aerobic prokaryote - mitochondrion, merging with another, possibly more advanced, anaerobic prokaryote, resulting in a eukaryotic cell). You get increased efficiency by using Oxygen to reduce hydrogen in aerobic energy production this way. Maybe some environmental or competative change might occur, causing increasing dependence on each other. This could might lead to attenuation of genetic material causing increased reliance on each other.
Nothing scientifically proven, but it is a possible explanation to your question (if we take intelligent design out of the equation, of course).

and FinsterniS - the fact that something answers questions demonstrates its utility, which just might in some people’s consideration, give it some validity.

[TG Moses VI]

In my best Penguin typing on keyboard impression: _Okay, here’s another:

Information theory states that “information” never arises out of randomness or chance events. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information._

[FinsterniS]

The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

First evolutionism is not perfect, but thermodynamic is not an argument against it.

The second law of thermodynamics says that heat energy will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one rather than the other way around

The second law says that entropy will tend to increase, but sometime entropy will decrease… only in a closed system it will always finish to increase. But life is not a closed system because the sun provide our energy… Creationism often say that the second law mean that everything is going from Order to Disorder and that Order will not pop up from Disorder. This is a deformation; there is exemples of order coming from disorder without any intelligence; snowflakes, lightning…

This is a good exemple of how creationist are creating more confusion than constructive criticism… Because at first the argument (for someone like me without formation in physics) seem valid, but it is just the deformation of a law (like the Occam’s razor)…

[cystic crypt]

@FinsterniS:

The presence of energy from the Sun does not solve the evolutionist’s problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

First evolutionism is not perfect, but thermodynamic is not an argument against it.

The second law of thermodynamics says that heat energy will always flow from a hotter object to a colder one rather than the other way around

The second law says that entropy will tend to increase, but sometime entropy will decrease… only in a closed system it will always finish to increase. But life is not a closed system because the sun provide our energy… Creationism often say that the second law mean that everything is going from Order to Disorder and that Order will not pop up from Disorder. This is a deformation; there is exemples of order coming from disorder without any intelligence; snowflakes, lightning…

This is a good exemple of how creationist are creating more confusion than constructive criticism… Because at first the argument (for someone like me without formation in physics) seem valid, but it is just the deformation of a law (like the Occam’s razor)…

odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.
And Moses: good question. We dont’ have all that much to go on from a molecular biology/cell biology basis. There are a few ways of introducing genetic material:
One way is through simple mutations. The sun, or other carcinogen “zaps” the DNA causing splitting of the molecule, or a shift from one base to another. The cell’s repair machinery might skip this part, or repeat it unnecessarily, ditto for replication. Also in some genetic diseases “repeat sequences” tend to multiply themselves over generations (your mother might have a 20 CGA repeats in one gene - you might have 40 . . . ) - just another mutation.
Another way if you go back really far is through conjugation and transduction. Conjugation is where bacteria exchange genetic material on plasmids with each other thereby increasing the amount of genetic material in the group. Transduction is where a virus takes genetic material from one bacteria and puts it into the genome of another one. We see where this works all the time in humans - AIDS, and even the simple adenovirus is being sought out for it’s ability to “transform cells” (get the cell to integrate genetic material into its genome). Women get a pap smear to prevent against cervical cancer - this is caused by a virus. Same idea, basically.
Finally we have all the ways of non-monera genetic manipulation via simple meiotic mechansims - assortment, crossing over,etc. An offspring might have taken on more genetic material than was intended through sexual reproduction, giving it more genetic material to play with.

People try to explain genetic transformation by “adaptive mechanisms”. This is bs. You do not get additional genetic material simply by being in a harsh environment. Something else has to happen.
Hope this answers your question. It might appear biased coming from a “intelligent design” guy tho’ . . . .

[TG Moses VI]

@cystic:

Hope this answers your question.

Koo…

While I wait for my other question to be answered, how does evolutionist explain metamorphosis? Ex. How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the “mass of jelly” (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn’t it appear to be “stuck?”

CC, also mentioned DNA and cell replication. Here’s another question: The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the “plan”) and RNA (the “copy mechanism”). How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

[FinsterniS]

odd . . . i seem to remember me elucidating the biochemical pathway of how the sun’s energy provides a system of order.

What is odd ? That is what i said…

[Field Marshal]

TG Moses VI - back to your reply post on the 3rd to “the goal of evolution is survival”. Can we really still use natural laws to reference to the most domesticated animal - us! Humans make their populations what they want, evolution will play a small part. It matters little with today’s technology the ratio of male to females in our population.

So what’s this Jedi religion in the UK all about? Does it follow George Lucas’ story/dogma or is it different?