ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/22/85)
>Sure - exactly as expected. Pure grandstanding, as Bill says. If they >get more complex, we expect it. If they regress, we expect it. If >they stay exactly the same, we expected that, too. So no matter what >happens, we expect it. So, as always, evolution reduces to >description, not explanation or mechanism. This is not very >compelling as an "expectation". The theory of evolution by way of natural selection says that random changes to the genetic material of organisms and environmental conditions that change in unpredictable ways interact to create new species. Predictions about the direction of any particular change in the natural state are not only not supported by this theory, they are forbidden. How can you make predictions about how random changes will occur? Darwin's theory allowed for both increase and decrease in complexity, with an overall trend toward an increase, probably caused by factors that cause a more complex organism to *generally* have a reproductive advantage over one that is less complex. Darwin's theory did not allow for organisms that remain unchanged for long periods of time. This very large hole in the theory was the reason for the formulation of punctuated equilibrium. The proponants of punctuated equilibrium are even now fighting the battle that is required to bring a new theory forth and get it accepted in the community of science. This theory allows for stasis. Criticizing the theory of evolution for not predicting what it says cannot be predicted makes as much sense as throwing out the principle of uncertainty because it doesn't predict the location and velocity of a photon. >If we know enough about the environment to say "Evolution is based on >direct natural selection, thus at any given time it procedes [sic] in >the direction appropriate to the immediate environment", we know enough >to say why, and whether, hyrax split and one group stayed the same, >while another didn't. But we don't, so we can't. We can guess if we >want to - but that's all. In order to say why, and whether Hyrax split and one group stayed the same, while another didn't we would have to know a great deal about the genetic characteristics of the Hyrax, about the random changes that were occurring, and about the environmental conditions that Hyrax was facing. Obviously we don't have that knowledge. This says nothing at all about the theory. >Sermon: > >This stuff is a positive hindrence to science. We say "natural >selection" and our brains stop thinking. But until we understand the >physiological and biochemical basis of organismal response to >environmental stimuli, we're going to STAY STUCK, invoking the magical >incantation "natural selection" whenever a problem comes up, and we're >going to continue to remain ignorant. Phooey. > >We say "Natural selection - Ah! Now I understand." But do we? Of >course we don't. What do you understand? It's a buzzword that tells >us exactly nothing except that what happened, happened. Now, surely we >could have deduced that without natural selection. I'm not denying the >concept _per se_. Of course selection occurs. But the real question >is why one thing should be selected and not another. > >I don't get it. You guys all KNOW this. I'n not telling you one >single thing that you don't already know. Yet this pretense of the >idea that natural selection means something or tells us something, is >maintained. Why? Why do you do it? > >End of sermon. Not only do us guys not know this, we know it to be false. The theory of evolution through natural selection may not provide some with enough explanation, but it provides far more in the way of explanation than any other theory. It offers a general mechanism by which one species can change into another and has pointed the way to fruitful research. It is true that at the present time we do not know the mechanism by which species change or remain the same, but I expect that this is a situation that will change in our lifetime. The question that is the focal point of this newsgroup will be decided by that understanding of the physiological and biochemical basis of organismal response to environmental stimuli that Paul references. The mechanisms by which organisms change and resist change will become known, and this knowledge will destroy the theory of evolution or make it even more obviously true than it is now. If a thorough understanding of the ways genetics works proves that species cannot change, the theory of evolution will die. If, on the other hand, evolutionary mechanisms are found, that should still the voices of Creationism, since debunking Evolution is all they got. []
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (04/24/85)
> evolutionary mechanisms are found, that should still the voices of > Creationism, since debunking Evolution is all they got. > [] To follow this up, let me issue this challenge to all of you creationists out there: Give me some POSITIVE evidence of creationism that is not out of the Bible. All that I've seen so far has been negative evidence in an effort to debunk evolution, while the evolutionists have been supplying positive evidence. Please, give me some facts supporting creationism, or move this discussion to another net( net.religion sounds appropriate to me) Thanks in advance Dave Fritzinger Public Health Research Institute(phri)
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (04/30/85)
In article <213@phri.UUCP> fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) writes: >> evolutionary mechanisms are found, that should still the voices of >> Creationism, since debunking Evolution is all they got. >> [] > >To follow this up, let me issue this challenge to all of you creationists >out there: Give me some POSITIVE evidence of creationism that is not >out of the Bible. All that I've seen so far has been negative evidence >in an effort to debunk evolution, while the evolutionists have been >supplying positive evidence. Please, give me some facts supporting >creationism, or move this discussion to another net( net.religion >sounds appropriate to me) >Thanks in advance >Dave Fritzinger >Public Health Research Institute(phri) "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! Before you say there is no evidence of design, first read what Darwin himself had to say concerning the "eye"! Biological clocks, electro-dynamic fields, DNA (bulding blocks), all are evidence of "design". Anyone with open eyes will see design when he looks at the world. It would a waste of time and space to give the numerous examples of design in our world. More positive evidence for creation is in the Second Law! The universe is running down. It can't be running down forever. Somewhere it must have been wound up; a starting point. Evolutionists say the Second Law does not apply to the earth because it is an open system. However the universe is a closed system. Given this, how could it have started in the first place. Before Evolution could have started on earth, it first had to produce earth, in a closed system; The Universe! Big Bang - No, Explosions cause disorder not order. Steady State - No, its running down!! Its not steady!! Creation - Definite beginning, design, order, running down, hmmm, seems to fit my origins theory! Darwinism is on its way out! If you don't think so, you are not up on current Evolution theory. Punctuationism is whats happening and this is just as much magic as you say Creation is. What is the difference between God creating Adam, and a reptile giving birth to a bird? Please, some evidence for P.E. if you will! Dan "Darwinism is dead"
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/01/85)
> "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! Why assume that for a design there is a single designer? There could be many designers for a design. > > > More positive evidence for creation is in the Second Law! ... > ... > Big Bang - No, Explosions cause disorder not order. According to theremodynamics, there is an increase in entropy (disorder) as we move towards equilibrium. Overall we may see growth in entropy, however thermodynamics does not preclude a local decrease in entropy. Try an experiment: take some water and freeze it in your refrigirator. That water entropy will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water). However, the enropy of its surrounding will increase! -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
jp@lanl.ARPA (05/03/85)
> > "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > Why assume that for a design there is a single designer? There could > be many designers for a design. Of course there's a designer, he's that kid playing sandbox. But, maybe he had friends over for the afternoon. jp
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/04/85)
In article <1037@ihuxn.UUCP> jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: [Dan] >> "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! >Why assume that for a design there is a single designer? There could >be many designers for a design. I agree! Thats why I have said three times before on the net that creation science is not concerned with naming a creator. It is just the scientific evidence for a "creation" as opposed to a purely naturalistic evolutionary origin. >According to theremodynamics, there is an increase in entropy >(disorder) as we move towards equilibrium. Overall we may >see growth in entropy, however thermodynamics does not preclude >a local decrease in entropy. Try an experiment: take some >water and freeze it in your refrigirator. That water entropy >will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water). However, >the enropy of its surrounding will increase! >-- Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water? Dan @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact! Mark Twain
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (05/05/85)
Responding to my previous posting Dan Boskovich asks:
> Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water?
Ice has a crystal structure. In a crystal the basic structural unit,
containing few molecules (usually 1, 2, 3, .), is repeated throughout
the crystal, over 10**23 or more molecules.
In liquids, e.g. water, such order does not exist. There may be some
local order over 10 or 20 molecules. However that order does not
extends itself over the macroscopic sample.
It is possible to measure the decrease in entropy, which is related to
the increase in order, for liquid to solid transition. When liquid
water converts to solid water (ice) there is a discontinuity in
the entropy function upon freezing. The change in entropy for
freezing is -L/T where L is the latent heat of melting and T is
the temperature of melting (T is given in the absolute temperature
units). For water(L) to water(S) transition we get
-333/273 = -1.2 joules/(gram degree)
for the the entropy drop at 0 degrees C.
For a better understanding of the second law of thermodynamics,
entropy, order etc., I suggest reading K. Denbigh's book:
"The principles of chemical equilibrium" published by Cambridge
University Press.
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T-IS
Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jhopadraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/05/85)
> In article <1037@ihuxn.UUCP> jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > [Dan] >> "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! > >Why assume that for a design there is a single designer? There could > >be many designers for a design. > > I agree! Thats why I have said three times before on the net that > creation science is not concerned with naming a creator. It is just > the scientific evidence for a "creation" as opposed to a purely > naturalistic evolutionary origin. Hey! Surprise us. Give us some of this scientific evidence. > Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water? > > Dan Because it is less random; the molecules are not free to wander around to the same extent that they can in a liquid. Padraig Houlahan
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (05/05/85)
> Why do you say that ice is more ordered than liquid water? > > > Dan Amazing how these so-called "scientists" fail to display any understanding of the out-of-context quotes by which they presume to discredit evolution. Is it any wonder that most mainstream scientists and educated persons dismiss such presentations as not worth their time? I guess I treat net.origins as a kind of electronic "National Enquirer." It's jaw-drop city whenever Miller, Boskovich, and that-guy-from-Bell-Labs-who-posts- the-Scientific-Evidence-articles come on-line. Such patience and perseverence the traditional scientific camp has! Enquiring minds want to know, -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/06/85)
> @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale > returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact! > I wonder of dan would be amused if we started posting quotations from Mark Twain on religion? Like from letters from earth or "If man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency" or like that.
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/06/85)
In article <1517@hao.UUCP> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: >> @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale >> returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact! >> > >I wonder of dan would be amused if we started posting quotations >from Mark Twain on religion? Like from letters from earth or >"If man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious >practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency" >or like that. Actually, I am well aware of Mark Twain's hatred for religion. But, his failure to acknowledge God has in no way impeded his insight into other areas of life. Many of his books are quite amusing. In fact, I am also quite a fan of Nathaniel Hawthorne, who also is quite obvious in his attacks against puritanical Christianity, yet manages to write some very interesting and fascinating stories. I hope I didn't offend you with my posting of Twain's quote. I will try to be as careful as all the evolutionists are out there so as not to offend anyone who worships science. Dan Q: What did the chaplain on the Titanic say to his congregation? A: Lets all stand and sink together!
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/07/85)
>> "Design" is evidence of a "Designer"! >Why assume that for a design there is a single designer? There could >be many designers for a design. YES! This is *it*!! Camels EXIST! The Universe was created by COMMITTEE! Merlyn Leroy protoplasm is just the experimental version of plasm