Why do people deny evolution?

@Setanta,

I dont consider oxidqtion as an increase in entropy the definition in P chem specifies it. The phase rule applies to all systems, of which our solar system is but one. The reaction that will turn us to toast is the thermonuclear reaction wherein H undergoes a fusion reaction yileding He and many many heavy elements
according to my Phase Rule reviews, entropy is a macroscopic thermodynamic quantity which measures unavailable energy , ultimately reflecting the degree of microscopic randomness or disorder. Entropy always increases in achemical reaction . Symbol S and is measured in Gibbs, which is a calorie per mole degree.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

oh yeh, I mention phase rule (Separately defined in each science) because it dfines its applicability to NON REACTING SYSTEMS ONLY. Rather than calling the earth /sun /etc a"closed systtem" we should really callit a non reactive system.
Life is non reactive while in the living state (although the individual chemical reactions that occur in respiration , digestion, etc are reactive, therefore undergoing an increase in disorder).

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Ah, back in regular form now. For a minute there I thought you were serious.

My bad.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The only way I see Woes's hypothesis being ID "friendly" is if one "Buys without question", that paper in which Bill Dmbski asserted that HGT was fatal to "common ancetry". This is another "quote mining exercise wherein the Dmbski boy gnored the " three phase evolutionary system" that both Woese and Goldenfeld combined on the fact that ARchae can not really be separated into distinct species so almost all gene transfer was horizonatl and common descen was impossible. As Rosenfeld stated "for the first billion years, all life was a big commune (hell there wasnt any diferentiation into plants, pro and eukaryotes, bacteria etc). Woese himself gave his view of his 3 stages of life and gene transfer. It was Woese himself who claimed that IDers were trying to make his work a "triumph of the Supernatural"

Last common ancestor requires that species be definable.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Except that Woese showed that it doesn't

youre guilty of Dembski itis. (Or are you just spitting out Dembski's DI paper)

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There is no way to prove ID

You prove the existence of all intelligent beings in the same way. This would include you. I have not physically seen you, but I know you exist because you are creating new information. I don’t know if the picture you posted represents you, so I can’t prove you physically exist but I am dam sure the words you are typing are created by some sort of intelligence. All information contain ideas created by intelligence. Period.

If that isn’t true, give me an example of a time you observed new information being created without an intelligent source. (Please don’t use the age of the information as an excuse for saying it has no intelligent source.)

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

thats all nice but wholly illogical. Its a "Just so Tale" without anything substantive regarding validating any Claim of ID.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
“Except that Woese showed that it doesn't”

youre guilty of Dembski itis. (Or are you just spitting out Dembski's DI paper)

No, I was quoting the clear meaning of the article.
You must be suffering from Darwin-itis.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Give me an example of information (that you can prove) does not have an intelligent source.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

HGT is not being attributed to just pre bacterial or even single celled life. Evolutionists want to use it whenever convenient but not otherwise.

So it seems you can have it both ways, verticle descent or mix & match genes when needed. There is no consistency to Neo Darwinian thought.

From the article:

Quote:

H.G.T. by transformation and transduction could potentially occur among other creatures too, even eukaryotes — even animals and plants — though that prospect was far more uncertain and startling, into the 1990s and beyond. Then improved genome sequencing and closer scrutiny brought more surprises. A bacterium had sent bits of its DNA into the nuclear genomes of infected plants. How was that possible? A species of sea urchin seemed to have shared one of its genes with a very different species of sea urchin, from which its lineage diverged millions of years earlier. That was a stretch. Still another bacterium, the familiar E. coli, transferred DNA into brewer’s yeast, which is a fungus. Brewer’s yeast is microbial, a relatively simple little creature, but nonetheless eukaryotic. This mixing of fungal host and bacterial genes happened via a smooching process that looked much like bacterial transformation, the researchers reported, and “could be evolutionarily significant in promoting trans-kingdom genetic exchange.” Trans-kingdom is a long way for a gene to go.

PS: I loved the “smooching process”. I gotta see if that is a real bio word.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Give me an example of information (that you can prove) does not have an intelligent source.

Most of your posting history on A2K?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BURN.gif

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

the article is from David Quammen newest book where he gets to play science reporter. He goes for something sensational ,ALWAYS. (His lil book on island bio geography had a few mis-statements of sources)

Woese is being given a lot of credit for stuff Lynn Margulis had done before him (about capturing entire genomes v the size of the bearers genome)

The phylogenetic tree using Margulis-Woese-Rosnfeld , to my observation, could help explain the genetic impetus to "more quickly" evolve so many entire phyla in the pre- Paleozoic to early Mesozoic (Ediacaran through the Triassic). However, we dont have any genetic material except for living species which may or may not even relate if Margulis and Woese are right .
Id like actual evidence that we see HGT in the higher organisms rather than speculate on epigenetic HGT in infected cattle.

Woese and Rosnfeld have taken the position that the Tree of life takes on Darwinian means, after the first Billion years when species were impossible to recognize ( Actually perceive cause evidence is only available from living archaea).

If this gives you some agreed upon vidence for ID, you need to explain it in the meanest of means.

Even the phylogenetic "trees" computed via Hi power computers based on full genetic components of sequenced genomes, seem to recreate a last common ancestor between and among the 5 kingdoms (as defined by Rosenfeld not Woese)

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Even if my posts have errors they contain information from an intelligent source. Your joke is juvenile. Are you around 12 years old?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Even the phylogenetic "trees" computed via Hi power computers based on full genetic components of sequenced genomes, seem to recreate a last common ancestor between and among the 5 kingdoms (as defined by Rosenfeld not Woese)

Hmm, an algorithm created by human intelligence in a designed computer system can recreate the same common ancestor by replicating an algorithm running in a living system that (if it was designed) was by someone much earlier in history. Both appear to be designed systems of information. The main difference, one is just a lot older.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Give me an example of information (that you can prove) does not have an intelligent source.

Easy: the odd shapes that clouds can take, like a horse or a face.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

1 Reply

The whole is beyond comprehension by the part. That is, if god is the whole, and the mind can only think in opposites or parts, then the mind cannot conceive of god, the whole. So, you can view the whole universe as an incarnation available to the senses and the mind. The god part of the mind is faith letting go of attempts to conceive of the whole.

I think of biological evolution as a discovery by Darwin and Wallace and not a theory or a hypothesis. Theories abound as to how biological evolution works, and it's a unfolding process, but it's silly and reactionary to argue about whether or not biological evolution occurs, because that horse has left the barn.

Individuals must also evolve spiritually, and it's stifling and killing to the spirit of personal development to hold onto past, anachronistic beliefs.

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

There are many descriptions of god(s). That's not the problem. The problem is that the teachings of god(s) hasn't improved humankind. We're supposed to be a christian country, but look at all the political strife in this country. Republicans wants to give bigger tax cuts to the rich, and take away social security and Medicare. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-baer/republican-appointed-supr_b_5549545.html

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Always whining about how Americans are so hard done by. Have you people no shame whatsoever?

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

Have you people no shame whatsoever?

No, we have replaced it with an education and open minds.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know