Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:mejihn7779 wrote:Not sure if this has been said yet, as I have not read the entire thread, but the THEORY of evolution totally goes against the 2nd LAW of Thremodynamics. In a nutshell, that LAW states that when left on their own, things will go from a stat of order to that of disorder.
In a fully closed system, which our Earth is not.
Player, he did state, "If left on their own!"
That the earth is not part of a closed system is besides the point. If mankind once had a life span of 1,000 years but now lives no greater than a hundred and some what number of years then it can only be due to the fact that even information is breaking down at the DNA Level. perhaps not breaking down exactly but being corrupted none the less. Regardless of whether or not the earth is an open system, the DNA information strand is not.
Since when it is given that humans once lived 1000 years? This idea is largely based on some misreadings of the Bible and misunderstandings of how ancient Hebrews detailed time.
At any rate, the rest of what you say IS irrelevant. DNA is not in a closed system. It is part of life. Thermodynamics applies only to non-living material. Life itself inherently opposes it.
See, you conveniently forget the "if left alone" bit. Life is not alone, nor are chemical processes.
Viceroy63 wrote:Taking aside that Genomes from different parents can be combined in the offspring to produce a new feature, what is that really saying but that a Genome for blond hair that was turned off in Dad is now turned on in the Child through Mom. That is not an increase of information but one of many ways in which genomes get turned on or off. Natural Selection also does that. It's not evolution. But that we don't live to be a thousand years old any longer is definitely a corruption or breakdown in the DNA system.
#1. No. We have an alphabet with 26 letters.. so far, but people can still can and do create brand new words, pretty much all the time.
#2. The idea that this is NOT evolution, is something, again, put forward by Creationists who have finally recognized that their arguments are faulty.. but instead of just admitting they were wrong, have decided to change the definitions of the worlds they use. What you say only makes sense if you ignore what is actually said in evolutionary theory.. as well as lot of other science.
Viceroy63 wrote: There is simply no evidence of DNA adding to itself in such a way as to produce a better being.
Define "better". Biologists don't use such descriptions much because "better" is purely subjective. Instead, the reference of natural selection is "fitter" aka "more highly adapted". The corollary to that is "more specialized". The more "highly evolved" a species is, the more specialized they are. BUT-- here is the conundrum that falsifies your entire claim. The more specialized they are,the better able they might be to outcompete other creatures in their particular specialized conditions, UNTIL things change. When things change, then the highly specialized creatures are the first to die off.
Viceroy63 wrote:Otherwise there would not be as many diseases running rampant as there are. Man could then evolve to the point where his body creates better anti-bodies against sickness and disease. Or at least increased age. But this is not what we see. The more that medicine advances the more sickness and disease we see.
People DO have better resistance.. and then the diseases evolve.
In fact, you present the classic parasite/disease paradox. A disease that is too effective kills off its host.. and thus itself, having no other place to live. This has happened in time. But, the population impacted dies, the disease dies and it ends.
Sooo...an effective parasite or disease has to have alternatives. Effective parasites generally don't actually kill their hosts, they just weaken them a bit. This may lead to early demise, but this gives the parasite time to migrate. Often the most effective strategy is to have another host. For example, some parasites go from human feces to snails.. etc. Small pox is a classic human example. It does kill almost 100% of those infected. HOWEVER, it was able to persist in an altered form in cows. Cow pox and small pox are related, close enough that the milking maids who had contracted cow pox did not get small pox (something you might remember lead to the creation of vaccines).
Anyway, the above scenario it just wrong.. and shows one of many reasons why young earth arguments are disdained so often. The "facts" presented are just not correct.
Viceroy63 wrote:So that Law of thermodynamics makes perfect sense in evolution not being possible because that would mean that the genome would have to add to itself in order to make itself better and that simply does not happen. It has never been observed in nature or in a laboratory where DNA has added to itself to create a better more perfect being.
Haven't even gotten into the bit about DNA does change in a laboratory, but the reference to Thermodynamics is not just wrong, its entirely and completely off base.
Viceroy63 wrote:In the video below, Dawkins is not only stumped by the question but his answer completely avoids the question all together. The question is, Can you give an example where the Genome is known to have added to itself. (I would add that this would go against that law of thermodynamics). All Richie has to do is simply give us an example of this happening but he does not. Instead he gives us an explanation that we are all modern animals. Wow! Impressive block.
He was "stumped" much like most adults will be stumped by the question "Is the Easter Bunny Rudolph's cousin or brother?"
Its just so divested from any reality that its difficult to even approach an answer without being utterly condescending or launching into a book-length explanation.
He actually DID answer it brilliantly, though. The fact that we are all modern animals is itself evidence of the change. There were earlier, less complex creatures. All creatures alive today do not have the same number of genes. They can be shown to have come from earlier species.
In fact, the Logan berry is a triploid plant, generated within our lifetime. Just to clarify, "triploid" means that it has not just an added gene, but a whole added strand of DNA.
The problem is not that the "question" wasn't answered, its that the guy did not get the affirmation to his question that he demanded. Of course, no real scientist COULD give the answer demanded.