turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
)Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,051
You're not gonna bring up the OJ Trial again are you??
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "Pillar of Science" contradicts Abiogenesis...IAW: The Law of Biogenesis.
I've already explained this to you twice. So, what you do here is Post...get that post Jacked Yard; THEN take a Siesta for a Time then repost the same refuted nonsense @ a later time?
Were you expecting a different result?
oy vey
This is only true in a closed system. Therefore you seem to take to the ptolemaic model of earth and the sun being locked in crystal spheres?
Although even in that model the energy from the sun would be able to drive chemistry.
Do you deny sunlight? Are we only powered by god's grace?
The Law of Biogenesis: The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_of_biogenesis
regards
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
Quote mining! You're being dishonest, Daniel!
Definition
noun
(1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.
(2) Recapitulation theory: the theory formulated by E.H. Haeckel in which the individuals in their embryonic development pass through stages analogous in general structural plan to the stages their species passed through in its evolution; the theory in which ontogeny is an abridged recapitulation of phylogeny.
Supplement
The theory has been discredited in time when modern science and genetics have raised doubt its validity.
Here we go again with "Closed Systems"
I'm shocked you didn't bring up "Crystals" lol. Round and Round we go, eh?Start with the first post in this thread and read slowly, you'll happen by these topics and their IMPLOSIONS about 20-30 times (I'm "low balling")
Oh brother. Here, conduct this "Skivvies Experiment" in Spain: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11197153&postcount=1509
After your stay @ a Local Medical Facility, report back with your results. mmm K?
Also, are you aware that Sunlight (UV) destroys AA's and Nucleobases ?? It's probably the reason why Hospitals use it for Infection Control, eh?
You could conduct another experiment to validate, and I'll give you all the Building Blocks in High Concentration: Put a frog in a Blender, turn on "Puree" for 5 minutes; THEN, place it out in the SUN for 5 Billion Years...report back here each week with a "Progress Report"!
regards
Here we go again with "Closed Systems"
There'll be a reason for that: it's actually written into the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I don't suppose you've ever read it. Now, how about posting the Scientific Law of Biogenesis.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
oh, nevermind. Post deleted.
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Wha ha ha ha. This is talking about " Recapitulation theory" professor. NOT the Law of Biogenesis.
THIS has been discredited....
(2) Recapitulation theory: the theory formulated by E.H. Haeckel in which the individuals in their embryonic development pass through stages analogous in general structural plan to the stages their species passed through in its evolution; the theory in which ontogeny is an abridged recapitulation of phylogeny.
SEE, here: http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Recapitulation_theory ...
Recapitulation theory
Definition
noun
The theory formulated by E.H. Haeckel in which the individuals in their embryonic development pass through stages analogous in general structural plan to the stages their species passed through in its evolution; the theory in which ontogeny is an abridged recapitulation of phylogeny.
Supplement
The theory has been discredited in time when modern science and genetics have raised doubt its validity.
my word people
Very nice formatting Daniel, but I fail to see the relevance to the theory of evolution.
We now have some maths, but the original insight didn't need it - Offspring tend to resemble their parents with some variation, and those that actually manage to reproduce are axiomatically sufficiently well-adapted to their environment to be able to reproduce.
Over time, and given those well-accepted facts, evolution is inevitable.
Even Behe accepts the fact of evolution - he just doesn't accept that it is sufficient explanation, which is where his narrative runs into the sand.
We now have some maths, but the original insight didn't need it - Offspring tend to resemble their parents with some variation, and those that actually manage to reproduce are axiomatically sufficiently well-adapted to their environment to be able to reproduce.
Over time, and given those well-accepted facts, evolution is inevitable.
Even Behe accepts the fact of evolution - he just doesn't accept that it is sufficient explanation, which is where his narrative runs into the sand.
Thanks
Well post the Scientific Theory of evolution and we'll evaluate whether there's 'relevance' or not...?
That's comforting; when did I ask for 'maths'?
A complete idiot could have come to the same conclusion @ the beginning of time observing two successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels.
And....What on Earth does this have to do with the discussion? If you would have posted the recipe for Pineapple Upside Down Cake it would have the same relevance to the discussion as the response above.
oh brother.
1. What on Earth does Behe have to do with the our current discussion??
What's next: Baby Seals? Integrity in State Government? Flying Kites? Other??
2. "evolution" what's that? Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
regards
You implicitly asked for maths when you asked for the theory of evolution.
The non-maths version is simple: heritable reproduction with errors in a finite ecosystem will lead to increasing optimisation for that ecosystem.
The mathematical analysis can show the likelihood of traits getting fixed in a population and answer other quantitative questions about evolutionary processes in particular situations.
The non-maths version is simple: heritable reproduction with errors in a finite ecosystem will lead to increasing optimisation for that ecosystem.
The mathematical analysis can show the likelihood of traits getting fixed in a population and answer other quantitative questions about evolutionary processes in particular situations.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wow. You are stuck in the 19th century.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Here you go yet again.
It has been posted again and again and again. You simply refuse to read it.
You're not gonna bring up the OJ Trial again are you??
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "Pillar of Science" contradicts Abiogenesis...IAW: The Law of Biogenesis.
I've already explained this to you twice.
You were wrong twice. The 2nd Law of thermodynamics is a quantitative 'law of science'. Physicists and chemists use it all the time. The words used to describe this law of science are well defined in very quantitative ways.
You have never shown quantitatively why the second law of thermodynamics violates abiogenesis. You equivocate by using the words in nonquantiative ways that have nothing to do with thermodynamics. You reject all experimental studies that show that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does allow patterns to emerge.
You explain which means you equivocate and parrot sentences taken from literature. You take the words out of the context of physical calculation. You substitute your wishful thinking for quantitive statements.
Oh goodness gracious.
Scientific Theories don't contain 'maths'.
Math is Immaterial "Abstract" and @ BEST, merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada/Niente.
Scientific Theories EXPLAIN by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING.
Show me a Scientific Theory based on Math/Equation and I'll show you a Married Bachelor!!
Scientific Theories ---"Explain"....The How (Mechanisms/Process).
Scientific Laws "Describe"....The What/Is and are often Expressed Mathematically.
See the difference?
Post the Equation for Germ Theory...?
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
And, as I'm sure you know, he can't. Because it doesn't. Various life forms on earth form all the chemicals necessary to life from raw ingredients all the time. There is no wording in the various formulations of the laws of thermodynamics that say "except in a cell", "except in life", "except in the presence of intelligence" or even "except if you're really really clever".
The simple fact is that since we know of chemical reactions now that can form life from non-life now we know it is not thermodynamically prohibited. It doesn't matter that those reactions occur in cells. That has no bearing on the thermodynamics of it.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wow. Did you really just say that?Oh goodness gracious.
Scientific Theories don't contain 'maths'.
No? If you leap off a tall building, what describes exactly what happens when you hit the dirt? Or your velocity? Or your terminal velocity?
What exactly permits the computer upon which you post your drivel?
Have you not been paying attention?
Married bachelors exist. They are called priests.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Oh, yes. The difference is between having a clue and not having one.
Which one?Post the Equation for Germ Theory...?
Last edited:
Sure. I suppose... cause you say so ?
It's called DeltaG, heard of it? And no it's not a Disco Band from the 70's.
The DeltaG for DNA/RNA/Protein Formation from their respective building blocks (Sugars, Nucleo-Bases, Activated Phosphates, Amino Acids) is "Positive": i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
Then when you throw in "Functional" DNA/RNA/Proteins...your argument Implodes Hindenburg style.
Straw Man Fallacy: 'patterns emerge'
. You think DNA (RNA/Protein Robots) are mere Patterns? 
“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES.”
I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)
Is there something here that's particularly confusing?
Sure. You forgot to mention: I was on the Grassy Knoll, slipped a message to the radio controller on the USS Maddox in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin, and convinced Napoleon that the Guerrilla Warfare Tactics (adopted from the Scythians) were no big deal, and he should attack Russia IN FORCE!!
my word sir