rl. The nucleosome "sheath" over DNA molecules can explain why DNA is conserved through evolutionary change. I had this argument wth a member named Ican back on abuzz. He made his damndest to cobble an argument that made it appear that untold levels of exponential negative factors work against the "chance" transfer of DNA freom one class of animals to another. The conservation of DNA (like preserving the first symbols on a bar code) were best explained by evolution but no methodology was yet diwcovered. Now lets see what they come up with.
As for "straining your credulity" all you have to do is keep your eyes open to the mass of evidence from all sides. No straining necessary.
Are you saying that a God could beleivably manipulate nothing into something but a purely naturalistic means could not? even when the naturalistic explanation takes into account all the available data.
As far as your "Thermo" arguments, you know the rest of the story about closed v open systems. Nothing is violated except common sense by adopting a magic Genie story of origins.
Ros,
Good to hear from you.
By your definition, there are NO 'closed' systems, and therefore there would be NOTHING that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to.
I'd say that denying the Laws of Thermodynamics are
ever applicable, (as your position seems to do) is something that also stretches credulity a bit as well.
BTW, just using the word 'selection' does not mean you have not posited a random process. You have.
Since not every 'more highly evolved' critter actually benefits from his supposed genetic superiority , and not every 'less highly evolved' critter perishes as a result of his supposed genetic inferiority, you are simply presenting a process which purports to 'play the odds', i.e. a classic game of chance.
rlQuote: Since not every 'more highly evolved' critter actually benefits from his supposed genetic superiority , and not every 'less highly evolved' critter perishes as a result of his supposed genetic inferiority, you are simply presenting a process which purports to 'play the odds', i.e. a classic game of chance.
A game of chance dictated by the environmental conditions. There never was any rule that said "more complex creatures live and less complex die' There is much evidence that organisms can revert to simpler forms when the environment they inhabit is compatible. Organisms exploit their immediate environmental conditions .
Oh yeh tell us how a naturalistic explanation of origins is incompatible with
dE=Dq -Dw , and
T dS- Dq>0
Is that a novel chess move or a coded message to quarters the rest of us are not granted access to?
What do you make of watering the lawn fm?
It seems a definite defiance of Darwinism to me. Like Cruft's Dog Show.
you talkin to me? or are you just clearing the attic?
farmerman wrote:rlQuote: Since not every 'more highly evolved' critter actually benefits from his supposed genetic superiority , and not every 'less highly evolved' critter perishes as a result of his supposed genetic inferiority, you are simply presenting a process which purports to 'play the odds', i.e. a classic game of chance.
A game of chance dictated by the environmental conditions. There never was any rule that said "more complex creatures live and less complex die' There is much evidence that organisms can revert to simpler forms when the environment they inhabit is compatible. Organisms exploit their immediate environmental conditions .
Oh yeh tell us how a naturalistic explanation of origins is incompatible with
dE=Dq -Dw , and
T dS- Dq>0
A game of chance with environmental conditions as only one of many variables. (Unless you want to draw the circle of 'environmental conditions' so broadly that it means 'anything that can exist or any event that can happen at any time.' Then you have in effect no limiting parameters, which is my point.)Variance in different conditions in different places, and differences in different conditions in the SAME place at different times. But a game of pure chance nevertheless.
I didn't say that the more complex live or die because of their complexity or lack thereof.
But the Laws of Thermodynamics are rather a moot point if they never apply to anything, don't you think so?
If the LoTs only apply to 'closed systems' , they are in practical terms useless, right?
Are there any closed systems you can cite? How about just one? Any system where energy and/or information from outside the system do not exist and their influence is not a factor?
Quote:By your definition, there are NO 'closed' systems, and therefore there would be NOTHING that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to.
That is by your definition, not rosborne979's definition. Rosborne stated quite clearly that there are closed systems but they are inside the Universe.
real life wrote:I'd say that denying the Laws of Thermodynamics are
ever applicable, (as your position seems to do) is something that also stretches credulity a bit as well.
Well, it doesn't help that the Laws of Thermodynamics applies to perfect ideal conditions, which can never be properly achieved in the real world.
Quote:Since not every 'more highly evolved' critter actually benefits from his supposed genetic superiority , and not every 'less highly evolved' critter perishes as a result of his supposed genetic inferiority, you are simply presenting a process which purports to 'play the odds', i.e. a classic game of chance.
Do you even know what more highly evolved even means?
It has nothing to do with genetic inferiority. Anything that is genetically inferior dies. I believe this has been stressed to you several times, although you ignore it no matter how many people wish to correct you on this error.
real life wrote:megamanXplosion wrote:Quote:By your definition, there are NO 'closed' systems, and therefore there would be NOTHING that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to.
That is by your definition, not rosborne979's definition. Rosborne stated quite clearly that there are closed systems but they are inside the Universe.
Name one.
Knowing in advance full well that just one example, despite being all you requested, will not bring you to recognition and acknowledgement of the inherent absurdity of your proposition, but rather will call forth from you naught but more absurd, irrational, ignorant, illogical, afoundational, wholly specious objection, I offer as example the space enclosed within a
Dewar Flask.
I think he's had enough of the flask -- the wine flask.
timberlandko wrote:real life wrote:megamanXplosion wrote:Quote:By your definition, there are NO 'closed' systems, and therefore there would be NOTHING that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to.
That is by your definition, not rosborne979's definition. Rosborne stated quite clearly that there are closed systems but they are inside the Universe.
Name one.
Knowing in advance full well that just one example, despite being all you requested, will not bring you to recognition and acknowledgement of the inherent absurdity of your proposition, but rather will call forth from you naught but more absurd, irrational, ignorant, illogical, afoundational, wholly specious objection, I offer as example the space enclosed within a
Dewar Flask.
I commend you for your effort, timber. A noble one indeed in a lost cause such as yours.
Unfortunately, as we all know a thermos bottle is NOT a closed system since energy IS transmitted between the contents and the outside world.
The contents of a thermos do not stay hot ( or cold ) forever (or even a very long time). Hot coffee may stay hot for the day, but it's heat is lost to the outside world soon enough.
Not really a closed system at all, though it is a nice attempt.
I had no doubt you'd not fail to meet my expectations, rl. You, with your sophistic rationalizations and inane, obfuscatory, contradictory ramblings, are high on the list of your proposition's own worst enemies. Your consistency in such respect is unchallenged.
He wouldn't know a closed system if it walked up and bit him in the ass.
He's got one on the top of his shoulders, for instance.
timberlandko wrote:I had no doubt you'd not fail to meet my expectations, rl. You, with your sophistic rationalizations and inane, obfuscatory, contradictory ramblings, are high on the list of your proposition's own worst enemies. Your consistency in such respect is unchallenged.
If I'm wrong, show why your example is a valid closed system, instead of whining about it.
rl, I know this'll set you off, but frankly, you've more than adequately well demonstrated that your agenda obviates any attempt at reasoned discourse. Whether your failure to engage in valid debate is through ignorance or arrogance on your part is immaterial; evidently the excersize is beyond you. I have no reason to suspect you might recognize or acknowledge that your persistent, unwavering, all-but-verbatim parroting of the ID-iot line makes clear that your personal spirituality construct is inadequate to the task of integrating itself with the real world. The assembled body of your interactions on these forums discloses a desperate need to accept and endorse one particular perception of the supernatural, and is typical of the fundamentalist mindset. In the end, that psycopathy precisely is the font of the hate, prejudice, and arrogance which enables, justifies, and eventually mandates atrocity in the name of religion.
Replying substantively, factually, and in academically sound, forensically valid manner to such nonsensical absurdities as you present by way of objection to or rebuttal of established fact serves only to encourage further absurdity on your part. You create for yourself a dual, inter-related, insurmountable obstacle. Until and unless you demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition, and further that your particular concept of the religion or other deistic construct you endorse be superior to any other, you quite simply have nothing beyond conjecture and unfounded assertion to bring to the discussion.
timberlandko wrote: . . . Until and unless you demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition . . .
I guess it's time to call for an objective definition of these terms. Since all evidence is 'evidence' what standards should be applied in its evaluation?
Going on the assumption that there cannot be two contradictory truths, when two parties agree on the evidence, by what means do they arrive at their separate conclusions?
timberlandko wrote:rl, I know this'll set you off, but frankly, you've more than adequately well demonstrated that your agenda obviates any attempt at reasoned discourse. Whether your failure to engage in valid debate is through ignorance or arrogance on your part is immaterial; evidently the excersize is beyond you. I have no reason to suspect you might recognize or acknowledge that your persistent, unwavering, all-but-verbatim parroting of the ID-iot line makes clear that your personal spirituality construct is inadequate to the task of integrating itself with the real world. The assembled body of your interactions on these forums discloses a desperate need to accept and endorse one particular perception of the supernatural, and is typical of the fundamentalist mindset. In the end, that psycopathy precisely is the font of the hate, prejudice, and arrogance which enables, justifies, and eventually mandates atrocity in the name of religion.
Replying substantively, factually, and in academically sound, forensically valid manner to such nonsensical absurdities as you present by way of objection to or rebuttal of established fact serves only to encourage further absurdity on your part. You create for yourself a dual, inter-related, insurmountable obstacle. Until and unless you demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition, and further that your particular concept of the religion or other deistic construct you endorse be superior to any other, you quite simply have nothing beyond conjecture and unfounded assertion to bring to the discussion.
I was going to mention earlier how funny it was that you could not come up with even 1 naturally occurring example of a closed system (since this whole discussion is about evolution which is supposed to be a naturally occurring phenom); you resorted to a man-made example which failed dismally.
I applauded your willingness to try at least. No one else has, but you should also not be too bitter when your efforts fail.
BTW , I also like your example of circular argumentation:
Quote:Until and unless you demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition, and further that your particular concept of the religion or other deistic construct you endorse be superior to any other, you quite simply have nothing beyond conjecture and unfounded assertion to bring to the discussion
Assuming an invalid argument to prove an argument is invalid.
But you used so many words, most folks probably didn't notice.
I did however, it's a timber classic. Well done, o Circular One.
real life wrote:If I'm wrong, show why your example is a valid closed system, instead of whining about it.
Perfectly closed systems can't be observed because observing them implies interaction with the internal elements of the system. Heisenberg and all that. There are no naturally occuring "perfectly" closed systems if we include quantum interactions.
HOWEVER, as I'm sure we've stated before, the laws of Thermodynamics relate to theoretically perfect systems, not specific real world systems. I think FM clarified this point for you several posts back, but now you have succeeded once again into dragging us off the basic point and onto some finely based nuance of misunderstanding you have over basic physics, rather than sticking to the point.
What the heck
was the original point you were making anyway?
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:If I'm wrong, show why your example is a valid closed system, instead of whining about it.
Perfectly closed systems can't be observed because observing them implies interaction with the internal elements of the system. Heisenberg and all that. There are no naturally occuring "perfectly" closed systems if we include quantum interactions.
HOWEVER, as I'm sure we've stated before, the laws of Thermodynamics relate to theoretically perfect systems, not specific real world systems. I think FM clarified this point for you several posts back, but now you have succeeded once again into dragging us off the basic point and onto some finely based nuance of misunderstanding you have over basic physics, rather than sticking to the point.
What the heck
was the original point you were making anyway?
I stated that the naturalistic Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution scenario violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
To which you replied that these 'Laws of science' don't really apply to anything in the known Universe.
Some laws, eh?
