That is exactly my point .... I already said that .. the ability for growth/self-preservation can not come from the genetic system's evolution. left to evolution alone, it will act like any other system which do not have that ability.

you dont see two rocks come together to produce a third one and the three continue to grow .... in fact the opposite happens... left to their own, rocks disintegrate .... sometimes they are forced by outside forces  to coagulate and two particles become one larger one not three (or more in live systems)... but eventually it disintegrate again ... never able to preserve their ownself.

a rock gets eroded ... never able to grow again in excatly the same pattern as it was ... but you get a cut on your arm and it heals excatly as it was unless there was a major break in the barrier that isolates your genes from the surroundings (and that barrier is what makes it a closed system). in that case your wound either heals in different pattern (and you get a scar) or gets infected if your system is overcome by outside interference ...

Also, the fact that eventually even live-systems disintegrate is a proof that entropy is still able to overcome that natural desire ... because that capability is limited (by creatinon's design) and not due to evolution. If that ability was due to evolution, why does it not preserve the organism forever?.... that is the main point of evolution ... isnt it? why does it not continue to preserve each and every single member of its species?

The answer is obvious .. because it is not evolution on its own ... that mechanism of preservation was created with the inherent tendency to eventually decay after a certain stage in its life and that lets Entropy perform its function toward vanishing order within each organism.

That by itself tells us three things:

1- the genetic system is closed and is subject to entropy

2- the desire to overcome that entropy is a time-limited capability which eventually stops and that lets entropy perform its function toward eventual demise of the order of that particular organism

3- each live organism has its own time-limit.

pure evolution cant possibly do that by its own mechanism ..... that is ..."survival of the fittest"

As you indicated before, evolution doesnt stop because it doesnt know when to stop ... but all individual organisms die ... i.e do not survive ... why not? because evolution cant maintain that desire to survive since it is not coming from it ... it is coming from each organism's genes as dictated by its creator either directly (as in the case of Man) or through its design that allowed it to evolve in a certain way.

it is clear that this issue is like the issue of God's existence. it all depends on whether you discuss the issue with or without preconceptions.

Hold on now...aren't scientist supposed to have a thesis and an antithesis. What is the anti-thesis of Evolution?

No, you are thinking about religion (christ and anti-christ)

Leauki,  Sodaiho here. Brad, the owner of JU, has deleted my blog and exiled me.  Stay in touch: [email protected]

Shalom,

Harvey

Y did they exile Harvey?

O Heavenly Father, I pray that you save us from further pointless arguments about your beautiful creation, Evolution.  Amen.

taltamir....no, sorry to disagree, but when one is a true scientist, there must be an antithesis to your theory. It is the nature of science. One must consider all possible outcomes when considering a theory. Otherwise, they are not scientists, they are just trying to prove something.  Science is based on lab, deduction, testing, and validation. In regards to some of the comments made on this blog, there has been no observation of evolution, on the scale of the origin of species. Adaptation is a part of life but it doesn't validate the concept of cross-species evolution...primate to human.

I really wish that you would read up on entropy and the second law of thermodynamics before you continue arguing.

Again, evolution has been observed in labs, as has evolution of one species into two (note that neither of the two is a different species from the original, just from each other).

Also, there is no need for an "antithesis". It's quite possibly for only one theory to exist. What's the alternative to the theory of gravity?

Anyway, evolution was been demonstrated in labs, and Creation hasn't.

But I am totally willing to consider experiments that demonstrate Creation. If you can arrange for an experiment in which some god (or a smurf, I don't care) manages to create two species out of thin air, I'll grant that Creationism is a science.

I think you are mistaking science for dialectics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectics

Sometimes several theories compete with each other, and whatever theory explains the world most consistently is then retained.

what exactly IS the anti thesis of evolution or gravity? the only anti thesis is "they don't exist", thats not a counter theory. As long as you are unbiased in trying to find proof that thesis is right OR wrong then you are ok. That is, if the thesis is not "your theory" but a case of "hmm i wonder IF such and such".

I find the very notion of a thesis is flawed though, it is badly explained and put forth, and only rarely necessary to justify an experiment.

THe antithesis of evolution is that we did not develop from lower primates and another rise of humanity must be considered. Gravity is not a theory yet even so, there is anti-gravity or 0 gravity. On Earth gravity is visible....in Space...there is an lack of gravity. Just like there is no such thing as cold...right...only the absence of heat. But, i will not be drawn into fruitless banter...I am entitled to believe in what I wish.....if you want to believe that your Great---------------grandpa was lemur...go for it!

Be careful, there - your knickers are showing.

Well, consider ahead.

Once you have a theory and can demonstrate ANYTHING in the lab, please tell us.

Well, I cannot see gravity, even on earth. But I am certain that there is gravity in space. The winter solstice is a funny moment to announce that there is a lack of gravity in space.

In science there is a huge difference between fact and theory.  Theory is a hypothesis which has substantial evidence which says it is true, however it has not been tested enough to be considered a law.  Fact is more on par with said scientific law, which is the result of at least a decade of constant experimentation which proves it to be true.

Making such a basic mistake is very detrimental to your argument.  Also:

Microevolution has been observed in labs, but not macroevolution.  As I said before, those fruit flies aren't changing into cats, so using it as an example of macroevolution is silly (which is exactly what you're doing).

Third, there is the concept of irreducible complexity, which Darwin himself said in the Origin of Species that it would prove his theory false if it were discovered to be the case.  Keep that in mind when reading the rest of my argument, as well as the fact that natural selection would discard anything that didn't immediately work, so for an eye to evolve, all the components would have to appear at once.

So, let's take that eye for example.  You have the retina, the choroid, the optic nerve, the cornea, the iris, the sciera, the ciliary body, and the fovea.  That makes a total of 8 pieces.  Giving each component a very liberal 50% chance of occurring, the chance of getting all those pieces together at once is 0.0039.

However, each of these components also consist of individual components.  The retina, for example, consists of the ILM, the nerve fiber layer, the ganglion cell layer, the inner plexiform, the inner nuclear, outer plexiform, outer nuclear, ELM, photoreceptors, and the RPE.  The chance of all of these coming together at once is 0.00098, still assigning a 50% chance to each component.

Each of the photoreceptors in your eye consists of 12 components, making the chance of it coming together at once 0.00024, 50% chance per component.

Mitochondria, a component of those photoreceptors, have at least 15 parts.  At 50% each, the probability of this occurring all at once is 0.000031.

Enzymes are one category among those 15 parts.  According to Wikipedia, a single mitochondrion contains "hundreds of enzymes."  Assuming that there are only 100 different enzymes at 50% chance for each to appear, that is a probability of 0.00000000000000000000000000000079.  Remember that is this a very gracious estimate.

Then there are the enzymes themselves, of which the simplest known is made up of 62 amino acids.  There are over 100 amino acids which exist in nature.  Even though only 20 are used for life, evolution doesn't know this.  Thus, it must choose the right amino acid out of 100, 62 times in a row, or .01^62.  Probability: 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

                                                                                                                                                      scroll over >>

I think it is pointless to continue any further.  The total partial probability I have gone through here is 2.24 to the -168th power.  Also, remember the Single Law of Probability, which postulates that anything with a chance less than 1 to the -50th power will never occur.  This is a very liberal estimate, and it doesn't even include a large portion on the eye's components.

Speaking of the eye, did you read that article I posted on the inverted retina?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp

There is no "microevolution" and "macroevolution". There is no mechanism for evolution to "know" when to stop.

No theory of evolution claims that fruit flies would "change into" cats.

Your entire argument is silly and nonsensical.

I suggest you read up on evolution first, before you make stupid points like that!

You talk about probability, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the opposite of probability. By proving that something is improbably to be created as a finished product, you are disproving Creationism, not evolution. If you don't understand that, I cannot take you seriously.

(Also, if you want to learn about science, don't look at answersingenesis.org. It's a religious site, not a scientific one. I don't read Richard Dawkins to learn about G-d either.)

It might be time again to list the three points that Creationists keep bringing up as weaknesses of the theory of evolution despite the fact that they have NOTHING to do with evolution:

1. Random chance.

2. Microevolution and macroevolution (as different mechanisms).

3. Origin of life.

If Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") were such great alternatives to science, why are all its advocates liars and idiots?

Of course Leauki, get rid of the Christian Science side of things to make your point and only listen to one side.  Answers In Genesis is backed up by many many Scientists, most of them very qualified and knowledgeable Ph.D's. 

When I went to the Creation Museum I loved the fact they gave both sides (secular and Christian) on almost all their exhibits.  You don't get that in any other secular museum.  Christianity and Science are NOT mutually exclusive.  They work together quite well.  We just have a different foundation for how we look at the evidence than those who are trying to get God out of the picture.  We have the same evidence.  There is no difference. 

no, you've got that backwards Leauki.  The Scientists who have a Christian world view make much more sense than those with a secular or evolutionary materialistic worldview do. 

Remember it was Darwin who wrote "Origin of Species."   Don't tell me there is no origins in Science at all because there is, has to be and we've discussed this already. 

Yes, sure. And even that lot cannot manage to remember that evolution is not about the origin of life. What a bunch of professionals that is! I am very impressed.

I checked. They have _three_ real scientists on staff. I looked at the thesis of one of them. It's about skin conditions. There is nothing that indicates that any of three know anything about evolution at all. (Which is of course the second requirement to be hired as a "scientist" by that institute.)

Science is science. It is not "Christian" or "secular", it remains the same, regardless of your religion. Both "Christian" and "secular" "sides"are non sequiturs, as we are not discussing culture or morality but facts.

Anyone giving both "Christian" and "secular" "sides" on scientific issues is a liar.

And I see you have remembered nothing again.

I said that the theory of evolution is not about the origin of life, not that there "is no origins in Science at all". Is it too much to ask that you at least remember what I tell you?

What is so difficult about understand that the theory of evolution is NOT about the origins of life? I don't understand it. Is it so difficult to remember? What if you write it on a piece of paper and stick it to your screen? Would that help?

There are probably scientific theories about the origin of the universe and about the origin of life. But the theory of evolution is not one of them.

I'm only saying Christian vs secular to differentiate the two.  I know what Science is.  But there is a Christian Worldview to Science and there is a materialistic human worldview.   It all depends on your starting point.   I am a believer in the Christian worldview.  You are not. 

So let's leave it there.  We've covered this already countless times.  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Leauki. 

The two sides are lying and truthful, not secular and christians.
The science is the same, and plenty of scientists are christians and they aknoledge evolution. How about YOU read both sides instead of asking the creationists to explain BOTH points of view to you (they completely misinterpret the point scientists are making, and then counting those false points that they created.)

You want to be truthful? go read a BIOLOGY college textbook about evolution... THEN go to christianscience.com or whatever and look for counter arguments to what you learned in that biology book, you would notice that they are attacking strawmen that don't actually exist in the real theory of evolution, or grossly misrepresent it.

Leauki, the creationism/evolution debate is inherently one of where we came from.  I suggest you read up on evolution before making such a silly and nonsensical statement, because the only thing that separates creationists and evolutionists is how they think the universe began.  Hence the 'creation' in 'creationist' and the 'evolution' in 'evolutionist'.

Unless you are simply referring to evolution within a species, this has everything to do with where we came from.  Everything you've said so far makes me think you're just confused.

Yes, there is microevolution and macroevolution, and yes, there is a difference.  Microevolution is when a species slightly modifies existing information to acquire a different characteristic.  Physical impossibilities are what tell evolution when to 'stop', as you put it.  You cannot simply acquire new DNA information from nowhere, and that is what is required for a species to 'upgrade' to another (chimpanzee to human, for example), as in macroevolution.

Seondly, I think that once again you are confused.  All evolutionists also say that higher life (i.e. humans) came from lower life (i.e chimpanzees), which came from non-life (i.e. rocks).  Dr. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist.  He says that life came about in this way.  You, however, seem to have your own special definition of evolution.

I would therefore like to hear, in your own words, what creationism is and what evolution is.

Macroevolution is, as I said before, the idea that life ultimately came from nothing.  Therefore, using math to show why this isn't possible is a very good argument against it.  If you think otherwise, you're an idiot - the complexity of life makes it impossible for even a lesser life form to evolve into a higher one.  The probabilities also don't disprove creationism at all because the fundimental idea is that a supreme being created everything we know, all at once, and including those mathematical probabilities.

Finally, I would like to point out that in terms of science, a great many of our esteemed scientists from the past (Benjamin Franklin, for example) were Christians.  It is very possible for Christianity and science to go hand in hand.

BS.  Don't think you can get away with 1) deciding for everyone else what the 'debate is about' and 2) pretending that the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origin of life.  Your ignorance (in the academic sense, not pejorative) or willful disregard for facts, whichever, is self-evident.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.  I hate these pointless arguments but they're like the wreck at the side of the road.

Again, evolution is NOT about how the universe began.

No. No evolutionists say that.

Chimpanzees are not "lower life" as per the theory of the evolution (they are contemporary to humanity and at the same "level"). And evolution says absolutely nothing at all about how life started.

What's wrong with you?