Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 04:24 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Valaista - You didn't make an argument. The fact that you think it's an argument is hilarious, though. This isn't an ad hominem attack, either... I think that it's pretty safe to say, objectively, that it is hilarious when a person tries to present one of the most fundamental principles of physics as if it is a question that scientists did not consider when formulating their hypotheses, let alone failed to disprove by well over a century of experimentation on the subject.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-10-2015, 04:28 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 04:19 PM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 04:08 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Thinks he understands thermodynamics better than professional scientists.

Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load LaughatLaughatLaughat Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Ok, do you understand what the Fallacy of Ad Hominem is? This involves the criticism of some person's position or belief by criticizing the person rather than the position itself. For instance, Einstein couldn't have been right about Relativity, for just look at the way he combs his hair. Or, look at the way he stutters when he talks. He must not know what he's talking about, so I'm not going to vote for him.

No, sorry, that's not what's going on here. The vast majority of professional scientists accept the theory of evolution. Every one of them has studied thermodynamics. They know more about it than you do. If it discredited evolution, they would know that and accept it. It does not, and they do not.

If I were committing a fallacy here at all, it would not be ad hominem, but rather "argument from authority". But you know, sometimes an argument from authority is a pretty good argument. If you need medical or legal advice, are you going to talk to a doctor or lawyer, or some random guy on the internet? In a scientific argument, are you going to trust professional scientists, or ... some random guy on the internet? Sorry, you lose -- I'm going with the scientists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 04:35 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 04:40 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 04:22 PM)Valaista Wrote:  What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow increasing its order?
Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception?

In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.

If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that ‘open’ system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

While you do in fact have most of your facts in order, here (and kudos for that), I believe you intended to refer to teleology, where something is assumed to have purpose that it may not actually have, than teleonomy, where the order is of the mathematical "information" sort, and may arise out of pattern interference and natural process (rather like the snowflake's shape arising from the 107.5 degree polarity-arc of the electrons in the water molecules that are freezing together). (Edit to Add: I'm just going to assume that you mean the genetic teleonomy, that without the DNA programming, it would not grow. That is correct, but it still does not support your suppositions from that basis.)

You're also correct that life requires coded information to be enacted in order to "defy" (actually obey) the laws of thermodynamics for the course of the lifespan programmed into that chemistry. It does not, however, follow that the way life is today is the way life began, biochemically, or that supernatural processes would be required to trigger the process of creating proto-life. If you are actually interested in abiogenesis chemistry's latest efforts, NASA/JPL have an excellent website dedicated to this, with several excellent blogs from some of the scientists. You would likely be most interested in the protocell experiments, in which they have added energy directly in the form of "sunlight" and thereby coaxed the protocells into reproducing chemically.

Your "pure chemistry of the cell is not enough" argument is not an argument, except the Argument From Ignorance. I cannot think of one person who suggests that what is chemically contained in the cell is "not enough" for the cell to operate and reproduce normally.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 04:35 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 04:22 PM)Valaista Wrote:  What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow increasing its order?
Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules. Wouldn’t it be more plausible to believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception?

In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.

If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that ‘open’ system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

While you do in fact have most of your facts in order, here (and kudos for that), I believe you intended to refer to teleology, where something is assumed to have purpose that it may not actually have, than teleonomy, where the order is of the mathematical "information" sort, and may arise out of pattern interference and natural process (rather like the snowflake's shape arising from the 107.5 degree polarity-arc of the electrons in the water molecules that are freezing together). (Edit to Add: I'm just going to assume that you mean the genetic teleonomy, that without the DNA programming, it would not grow. That is correct, but it still does not support your suppositions from that basis.)

You're also correct that life requires coded information to be enacted in order to "defy" (actually obey) the laws of thermodynamics for the course of the lifespan programmed into that chemistry. It does not, however, follow that the way life is today is the way life began, biochemically, or that supernatural processes would be required to trigger the process of creating proto-life. If you are actually interested in abiogenesis chemistry's latest efforts, NASA/JPL have an excellent website dedicated to this, with several excellent blogs from some of the scientists. You would likely be most interested in the protocell experiments, in which they have added energy directly in the form of "sunlight" and thereby coaxed the protocells into reproducing chemically.

Your "pure chemistry of the cell is not enough" argument is not an argument, except the Argument From Ignorance. I cannot think of one person who suggests that what is chemically contained in the cell is "not enough" for the cell to operate and reproduce normally.

Interesting!! Ill definitely study NASA's research.

How about these questions?

(1)Why are so-called vestigial organs offered as evidence of evolution, when, if they were truly vestigial, would merely prove that genetic information is being lost in the process of devolution?

(2) Carbon-14 is found in all living things, but it cannot possibly exist longer than 100,000 years after death due to its rapid rate of radioactive decay. Why is it that Carbon-14 is found in coal, crude oil, and even diamonds-even after calibrating for atmospheric C-14?

(3) Why is no vertical evolution observed in malaria protists after hundreds of thousands of generations in a laboratory? Why do similar studies in bacteria show changes in size and nothing else?

(4)Why is it that genetic change in an organism from one generation to the next is always horizontal or downward, never upward? And why is such breeding or devolution dishonestly referred to as evidence of vertical evolution?

(5) What possible basis is there for believing that soft tissue could endure in a T-Rex femur if it was actually 70 million years old? What method of preservation could accomplish this?

I'm genuinely curious!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
I found all your questions here, quoted and pasted verbatim.
http://www.evolutiondemolition.info/goodquestions.html



These are not your questions. There is nothing genuine about your posts, everything is copied and pasted from somewhere else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 05:11 PM)skyking Wrote:  I found all your questions here, quoted and pasted verbatim.
http://www.evolutiondemolition.info/goodquestions.html



These are not your questions. There is nothing genuine about your posts, everything is copied and pasted from somewhere else.

Of course, I'm not a scientist lol. Im not writing a college paper. Just want information that I can find. So, can you answer those questions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 05:22 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 04:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  (1)Why are so-called vestigial organs offered as evidence of evolution, when, if they were truly vestigial, would merely prove that genetic information is being lost in the process of devolution?

(2) Carbon-14 is found in all living things, but it cannot possibly exist longer than 100,000 years after death due to its rapid rate of radioactive decay. Why is it that Carbon-14 is found in coal, crude oil, and even diamonds-even after calibrating for atmospheric C-14?

(3) Why is no vertical evolution observed in malaria protists after hundreds of thousands of generations in a laboratory? Why do similar studies in bacteria show changes in size and nothing else?

(4)Why is it that genetic change in an organism from one generation to the next is always horizontal or downward, never upward? And why is such breeding or devolution dishonestly referred to as evidence of vertical evolution?

(5) What possible basis is there for believing that soft tissue could endure in a T-Rex femur if it was actually 70 million years old? What method of preservation could accomplish this?

I'm genuinely curious!!!

Fuck, I hope you're not a Gish-Gallop "machine-gunner". Those people wear me out! But for now, I'll take you at your word.

1) There is no such thing as "devolution". Evolution has no up- or down-the-ladder evolution. There is a mathematical tendency toward complexity in replicating systems, but that's a different matter. First of all, you have to understand what a vestigal organ is. It basically means you still have the genetic programming to produce a part you no longer need (or use for something other than its original, primary purpose, like the wings on an ostrich), and that the randomness of natural selection has not fully removed it from the DNA. Even that would be rare; more typically the pressure is on the "size" part of the developmental genes, and the useless part gets smaller until it's barely there, like whale pelvis/legs (yes, they have them, internally). What often happens is that a piece of DNA code is "deactivated" by a mutation, after it is no longer in use by the creature, and the deactivation cannot hurt it by removing something necessary/functional. Sometimes, most of the code is still there, and that vestigal code is reactivated in some other function. By some evidence, this is the primary "tool kit" evolution operates on, and may explain why 95% of our DNA seems to be "junk" made up of gibberish sections and deactivated genes from our ancestors.

2) Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. That means after 50,000 years, it will have lost half its radioactive material 8.73 times, leaving 0.236% of the original C-14. Keep doing the math, and it drops below 0.001% ... but at no point will it ever reach zero. Provided you have accurate-enough devices to measure percentages that are ever-smaller, you can get ever-more-distant dates using C-14. However, there are numerous other isotopes which decay much more slowly, and are more useful for dating older items. Carbon is simply the most useful because it is involved with the life-cycle of a creature, so it can tell us when something died, and not just when it was formed as a fossil (or buried in the rocks around it, the more common method, as I understand it).

3) What is "vertical evolution"? (I know what it actually means, but it's clear that you do not mean "they got their DNA from parent generations instead of from gene-sharing among neighbor populations", so I assume here you mean "increased complexity".) What are you looking for, exactly, and why do you expect to see it in laboratory protists?

4) Respectfully, I don't think you're using these terms correctly, to the point that I'm not even able to translate what you're trying to ask me. What I *think* you're trying to say is that you consider changes in environmental adaptation to be "horizontal" changes, negative mutations or complexity/parts-loss to be "downward", and only increased capacity to be "upward"... the problem is that's not how evolution works, since it has no "direction" it is "trying" to go. Life tries whatever works, and goes in all directions, as it can. The idea of "higher" and "lower" evolution has not been how anyone has described the concept since Aristotle's Great Chain of Being, and we now teach it as a laughable concept, like, "Isn't it funny we once thought this?!" Aristotle is not disrespected by science; he is considered the first true, modern-type biologist because of the detailed dissections and drawings he did. But they also teach that a LOT of his ideas were just flat-wrong, yet persist today for some reason.

5) From what I recall of the T-Rex bone, nobody DID think it was possible until they dropped a femur and it broke, revealing "soft stuff". It was only then that they started looking for answers in the fossilization process. You can read about it, here:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

I apologize if you intended some other question or meaning. I have answered the best I can, given my interpretations of what you wanted to know.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
26-10-2015, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 05:28 PM by skyking.)
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Sorry RS, I should have quoted the post above.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 05:34 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 05:42 PM by Fatbaldhobbit.)
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 05:16 PM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 05:11 PM)skyking Wrote:  I found all your questions here, quoted and pasted verbatim.
http://www.evolutiondemolition.info/goodquestions.html



These are not your questions. There is nothing genuine about your posts, everything is copied and pasted from somewhere else.

Of course, I'm not a scientist lol. Im not writing a college paper. Just want information that I can find. So, can you answer those questions?

[Image: 41Cg4E3rZGL_zpsbl6n3enx.jpg]

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 05:44 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 05:22 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 04:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  (1)Why are so-called vestigial organs offered as evidence of evolution, when, if they were truly vestigial, would merely prove that genetic information is being lost in the process of devolution?

(2) Carbon-14 is found in all living things, but it cannot possibly exist longer than 100,000 years after death due to its rapid rate of radioactive decay. Why is it that Carbon-14 is found in coal, crude oil, and even diamonds-even after calibrating for atmospheric C-14?

(3) Why is no vertical evolution observed in malaria protists after hundreds of thousands of generations in a laboratory? Why do similar studies in bacteria show changes in size and nothing else?

(4)Why is it that genetic change in an organism from one generation to the next is always horizontal or downward, never upward? And why is such breeding or devolution dishonestly referred to as evidence of vertical evolution?

(5) What possible basis is there for believing that soft tissue could endure in a T-Rex femur if it was actually 70 million years old? What method of preservation could accomplish this?

I'm genuinely curious!!!

Fuck, I hope you're not a Gish-Gallop "machine-gunner". Those people wear me out! But for now, I'll take you at your word.

1) There is no such thing as "devolution". Evolution has no up- or down-the-ladder evolution. There is a mathematical tendency toward complexity in replicating systems, but that's a different matter. First of all, you have to understand what a vestigal organ is. It basically means you still have the genetic programming to produce a part you no longer need (or use for something other than its original, primary purpose, like the wings on an ostrich), and that the randomness of natural selection has not fully removed it from the DNA. Even that would be rare; more typically the pressure is on the "size" part of the developmental genes, and the useless part gets smaller until it's barely there, like whale pelvis/legs (yes, they have them, internally). What often happens is that a piece of DNA code is "deactivated" by a mutation, after it is no longer in use by the creature, and the deactivation cannot hurt it by removing something necessary/functional. Sometimes, most of the code is still there, and that vestigal code is reactivated in some other function. By some evidence, this is the primary "tool kit" evolution operates on, and may explain why 95% of our DNA seems to be "junk" made up of gibberish sections and deactivated genes from our ancestors.

2) Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. That means after 50,000 years, it will have lost half its radioactive material 8.73 times, leaving 0.236% of the original C-14. Keep doing the math, and it drops below 0.001% ... but at no point will it ever reach zero. Provided you have accurate-enough devices to measure percentages that are ever-smaller, you can get ever-more-distant dates using C-14. However, there are numerous other isotopes which decay much more slowly, and are more useful for dating older items. Carbon is simply the most useful because it is involved with the life-cycle of a creature, so it can tell us when something died, and not just when it was formed as a fossil (or buried in the rocks around it, the more common method, as I understand it).

3) What is "vertical evolution"? (I know what it actually means, but it's clear that you do not mean "they got their DNA from parent generations instead of from gene-sharing among neighbor populations", so I assume here you mean "increased complexity".) What are you looking for, exactly, and why do you expect to see it in laboratory protists?

4) Respectfully, I don't think you're using these terms correctly, to the point that I'm not even able to translate what you're trying to ask me. What I *think* you're trying to say is that you consider changes in environmental adaptation to be "horizontal" changes, negative mutations or complexity/parts-loss to be "downward", and only increased capacity to be "upward"... the problem is that's not how evolution works, since it has no "direction" it is "trying" to go. Life tries whatever works, and goes in all directions, as it can. The idea of "higher" and "lower" evolution has not been how anyone has described the concept since Aristotle's Great Chain of Being, and we now teach it as a laughable concept, like, "Isn't it funny we once thought this?!" Aristotle is not disrespected by science; he is considered the first true, modern-type biologist because of the detailed dissections and drawings he did. But they also teach that a LOT of his ideas were just flat-wrong, yet persist today for some reason.

5) From what I recall of the T-Rex bone, nobody DID think it was possible until they dropped a femur and it broke, revealing "soft stuff". It was only then that they started looking for answers in the fossilization process. You can read about it, here:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

I apologize if you intended some other question or meaning. I have answered the best I can, given my interpretations of what you wanted to know.

That did answer a lot of questions. However, there still exists the possibility of Theistic evolution due to irreducible complexity. Anyhow, the Human heart is something that I think might falsify Darwin's theory.

The heart, like the brain, generates a powerful electromagnetic field. The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The results of The Electricity of Touch experiment were positive: The data showed “when people touch or are in proximity, transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs.

The heart’s electromagnetic field contains certain information or coding, which researchers are trying to understand, that is transmitted throughout and outside of the body. One of the most significant findings of this research related to this field is that intentionally generated positive emotions can change this information/coding.
That discovery raises the question whether the cardio electromagnetic field information transmitted from an individual who is angry, fearful, depressed or experiencing some other negative emotion, takes on beneficial properties when it is influenced by positive emotions. Also, is the care, compassion, love or other positive emotion not only transmitted throughout an individual’s body as the cardio electromagnetic field radiates through it, but transferred externally as well to people in close proximity or even, perhaps, over long distances?
Researchers were able to show that the mother’s brainwaves synchronized to that of her baby’s heartbeat. In this experiment, the baby was laying in the mother’s lap with a blanket placed in between mother and baby. In the summary of their findings, the study’s authors wrote, “This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. It appears that when the mother placed her attention on the baby that she became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals generated by the infant’s heart. These findings have intriguing implications, suggesting that a mother in a psycho physiologically coherent state became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic information encoded in the electromagnetic signals of her infant.”

Charles Darwin may be best known for popularizing the notion that nature is red in tooth and claw, however, he used the word love 95 times in The Descent of Man, while his most famous phrase, survival of the fittest, appears only twice.
Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: