NO! NO! It's our understanding of evolution that's intelligent! Yikes!

jock59801: "Entire books have been written on that subject, not to mention hundreds of scientific papers."

If there have been entire books and papers written on the subject, why have you not given their references? If you are going to state a fact, please have the courtesy of supplying references that support your information. Geoffrey Simmons who wrote "What Darwin Didn't Know" not only asked a similar question to mine, but explains, from a medical doctor's view, why there have been no good explanations for this question from an evolutionary view point.

But this is the concern I have over this debate, both sides of this issue is theory, no one alive has seen either process, so no one can say anything for sure. If we are going to stop looking at either side, because of we only have faith for one side, we are doing nothing more than teaching our children that there is nothing wrong with prejudice. As long as our children see us demonstrating prejudice, based off faith, then they will do the same thing. As long as prejudice exists, so will bigotry and discrimination. I will bet many people who talk tolerance are the same who want to silence one or the other side of this argument. The question now becomes, how is silencing an opposing view tolerance? Should we not allow both to be debated on this ground alone?

School kids are just trying to get laid, they don't give two hoots about a bunch of old ferts debating stuff like this

(information_theory)

In information theory, entropy is a measure of the uncertainty associated with a random variable. In this context, the term usually refers to the Shannon entropy, which quantifies the expected value of the information contained in a message, usually in units such as bits. Equivalently, the Shannon entropy is a measure of the average information content one is missing when one does not know the value of the random variable. The concept was introduced by Claude E. Shannon in his 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".

*********************************************************

In the "Spontaneous Generation Theory", Spikes in Lightening, Radiation from the Sun and heat and chemicals from a Volcano are all Energy but in no way do these forces act in an "ORGINIZING manner as is stated in the function of Entropy... Maybe you ought to study up on you physics before replying in such a BOLD manner!

I'm not arguing the fact of these energies acting on life in evolutionary way, I am talking about the "ORIGINS OF LIFE" >>> Quit changing the subject to try to confuse the people on the subject matter at hand!

If you have "proof" of an Abiogenesis Theory that IS PROVEN, Please by all means share your information here with us, otherwise in a purely hypothetical manner of using Spontaneous Generation as proven theory, you must show your work and disprove my Falsification through the laws of Physics to be wrong, you have not done that and as long as my statements remains by using the function of Entropy, then your unproven hypothesis on the subject remains "Falsified", as per the function of Entropy...

You can show your primordial soup all day long but by no means has any scientists gone beyond this muck and showed an OUTSIDE FORCE to turn the molecules, the Amino acids into proteins in a scientific setting of a lab! In fact the molecular scientist will quickly show that “an intelligence” of some sort, such as man in the lab is needed to turn these acids into proteins! Go figure... If you can "SHOW" an outside force that can turn these acids into proteins then I would quickly say you are going to be famous but no one has yet to "SHOW" this outside source as keeping within the function of Entropy!

So as it stands, through the very Laws of Physics, I HAVE "FALSIFIED" the hypothesis of "Spontaneous Generation Theory" unless you can show, in the lab the "outside force” that can achieve the outcome that will produce life.

If you don't understand the function of Entropy and the genesis of information out of nothingness, then reread my post on , "I have a computer..."

Information doesn't "INVENT" itself and by way of the function of Entropy we can confidently say that DNA did NOT have the intelligence to invent itself when it didn't exist to begin with! (See the catch 22 Evolutionary armchair scientists employ?) Through the function of Entropy, you have to have an outside, orginizing intelligence to "overcome" the function of Entropy, otherwise Entropy will act apon itself in equal ways to destroy all orginization in just as much as it acts apon itself to orginize, so the result will always be nill! This is a matter of ODDS and you can't break the laws of nature just because you believe in something to be true...

In my previous post, I stated, "Information doesn't "INVENT" itself"!

Could you imagine if Information could, indeed, invent itself! I've read that before, yeah, it was in the Bible! Only a God can create himself into existence yet here we have the Evolutionary community claiming "Spontaeous Generation" and the only explanation to this term is that it was so "God-like" that it "created itself"! Yes folks, this is what the Evolutionary, neo-Darwinian advocate is saying, is that life "created' itself! That is quite a religious statement in itself (Grin)

BUT, what I am saying, from a PURELY scientific standpoint, is that matter, including life, cannot "Create itself' through the very laws of physics!

After all Matter cannot be created nor destroyed neither can life create itself when it didn't exist beforehand...

I ask where did you come from and you'll answer from your mother, and where did she come from? From her mother and so on and do forth to the beginning to where the first person on Earth, where did they come from? And the Evolutionary crowd will claim, "from nothing" They will tell you that the first bacteria on Earth came from, well it was so intelligent, so rightious, so GREAT, so smart, so very motherly, that the very first life on Earth was so godly that it created itself! A consiousness that was so perfect that it was scientifically advanced in nature to be able to conjure up it's own existence! hehehe Do you believe these Evolutionary Geniuses? They revert back to the religious in faith!...

But I claim that the First persons on Earth came from their mothers from another world and they too themselves came from their mothers all throughout infinity! Life is here and it didn't originate on Earth! How ARROGANT ARE YOU?

But wait! The first life forms were NOT smart, intelligent scientifically inclined! So how does the Evolutionary explain this advanced intelligence that "created itself"??? Especially when the laws of physics claim that such a thing can NOT happen? WOW these Evloutionary's, they can bend the laws to fit their claims?

Just to set the record straight, I haven't claimed that Evolution does NOT happen, in fact, lightening, solar radiation and chemicals CAN act on living entities and change the DNA structure! This is a proven!

What isn't proven is the "origins" of species! NO ONE can show the origins of life yet there are three models,out there...

Origins from a GOD... (can't be proven)

Origins from spontaneous Generation (In which I have shown that the function of Enotopy has 'falsified' this purly bogus stance) or

The origins that, like man, we'll venture out among the stars and leave our presence on other planets through our sense of adventure and scientific mind! This is being proven by our scientific ways of venturing out among the stars right now!

Well anybody who reads all that deserves a Nobel Prize in something.. I don't know what though :D

So are they gonna teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster too? Intelligent design being taught in school works 2 ways people, go Pastafarians!

Vidas,

I think you ask too much of entropy. What we know from thermodynamics is that, for systems in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE), the action of collisions will always increase the entropy when restoring the system to LTE from some small perturbation. The scope of this result from Boltzmann's H-theorem is sharply limited.

Indeed, life now extant and ubiquitous can perhaps be in part defined as a "temporary pocket of decreasing entropy". Somehow life has therefore already "beaten" entropy, so the fact of entropy generation cannot be held out as proof of anything. The action of cell membranes, concentrating against the concentration gradient, is one of the dandy little "Maxwell demons" that contribute to this and there must be other examples. The problem of first life is not, I claim, a problem amenable to the rules of LTE. While I agree it is a very open question, your assertion that entropy rules out any option for the spontaneous accretion of goo into a living unit is at minimum a stretch and probably a blunder.

Awright! So we're back to Intelligent Goo theory. Feels right :)

Most backward country in the world, it is a miracle you survived this long.

I am 62 and was taught science in school and religion at home, it is good to know both, it is kind of humble realization that we do not act better than monkeys, not yet anyway.

Yes, our alien Moms should come and take our nukular weapons away before we get in some real trouble

Hey Vidas,

I know you think you're pretty clever with your silly entropy argument, but peoplehave been (falsely) throwing that argument around seemingly forever.

I remember from grade 10 Science class, I think it was, that the entropy of an entire system must always increase. You are misrepresenting the 2nd law. Basically, order can increase in a region of the universe as long as the total entropy of the universe increases. It does not prevent 'information' from being created locally. Gene duplication is an example of this and this is NOT controversial. Although a relatively new area of study, copy-number variations have been shown to occur widely in humans. Copy number variations are regions of the genome, sometimes functional genes, that are duplicated in offspring at each generation. Thus, extra 'information' is created. According to your logic, this is impossible. Please explain.

The earliest appearance of a zygote , (less than a half inch) of a fish, a goat, bird or a human, are nearly indistinguishable, are at least superficially so similar, as to generate question of the remote possibility of common link.

And God sent the alien fish-goat-bird men to take to wife the intelligent goo of the Earth.. and they went forth and multiplied.. and He saw that it was good

And on the 5th day, the message board rested. Amen

jock59801 wrote: ["but if we're not discussing Darwinian Evolution then what are we discussing?"] Evolutionary theory has come so far beyond Darwin that he might not recognize much of it. He was the first one to figure out natural selection, and that core of the theory is still intact, but the guy didn't even know about genetics, for goodness sake. And he got some things flat wrong (although surprisingly few). <<< And they had virtually no hominid fossils when Darwin was working. They found the first Neanderthal before he published the Origin, but they couldn't agree on what it was. Darwin hardly mentioned humans in the Origin anyway. He did so in later writings, but only in the context of our similarities to other animals. Again, there was no genetics. <<<

jock59801 wrote:

Eric0038 wrote: [What do you know today that Darwin didn't know that amounts to reasonable evidence for a non-human producing a human through an evolutionary process?] Are you kidding? Surely, this must have been a joke (if so, good one lol)

First off, the modern evolutionary synthesis wasn't formulated until after Darwin, and newer fields of study have improved upon it since:

Those newer fields would be (and this is by far not a comprehensive list), molecular biology, biochemistry, modern genetics/genomics, evolutionary developmental biology, and ecology.

If you seriously think that there has been no progress in evolutionary theory since Darwin's time then you've got a lot of biology to catch up to before we can continue this discussion in a meaningful manner. <<<‘Evolutionary Genetics’ or ‘Modern Evolutionary Synthesis’ is nothing more than genetics merged with Darwinian evolution. At best, what you have here is a group of BIASED geneticists observing the relatively small genetic changes in various specimens (changes that DO NOT produce totally new and different organisms or species) and then SPECULATING that over the course of millions or billions of years small changes in a simple organism produced a more complex organism or organisms, subsequently resulting in millions of extraordinarily complex biological systems.

Based on their so called “evolutionary synthesis,” evolutionists are merely GUESSING that given enough time a non-human “changed” into a human. That’s pretty farfetched! Macroevolution is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, nor is it supported by the fossil record. If you didn’t actually see a species experience change to the extent that it became an entirely different species, then you can’t state as a matter of fact that this metamorphosis ever occurred. Your amended Darwinian concepts prove to be mere assertions, not arguments. An argument is an opinion supported and/or demonstrated by reasonable evidence. An assertion is an opinion with no rational supporting evidence, and that’s all you evolutionists will have as long as you maintain your worldview.

That last post should've looked like this:

jock59801 wrote: ["but if we're not discussing Darwinian Evolution then what are we discussing?"] Evolutionary theory has come so far beyond Darwin that he might not recognize much of it. He was the first one to figure out natural selection, and that core of the theory is still intact, but the guy didn't even know about genetics, for goodness sake. And he got some things flat wrong (although surprisingly few). <<<

jock59801 wrote: And they had virtually no hominid fossils when Darwin was working. They found the first Neanderthal before he published the Origin, but they couldn't agree on what it was. Darwin hardly mentioned humans in the Origin anyway. He did so in later writings, but only in the context of our similarities to other animals. Again, there was no genetics. <<<

Eric0038 wrote: [What do you know today that Darwin didn't know that amounts to reasonable evidence for a non-human producing a human through an evolutionary process?] Are you kidding? Surely, this must have been a joke (if so, good one lol)

First off, the modern evolutionary synthesis wasn't formulated until after Darwin, and newer fields of study have improved upon it since:

Those newer fields would be (and this is by far not a comprehensive list), molecular biology, biochemistry, modern genetics/genomics, evolutionary developmental biology, and ecology.

If you seriously think that there has been no progress in evolutionary theory since Darwin's time then you've got a lot of biology to catch up to before we can continue this discussion in a meaningful manner. <<<

‘Evolutionary Genetics’ or ‘Modern Evolutionary Synthesis’ is nothing more than genetics merged with Darwinian evolution. At best, what you have here is a group of BIASED geneticists observing the relatively small genetic changes in various specimens (changes that DO NOT produce totally new and different organisms or species) and then SPECULATING that over the course of millions or billions of years small changes in a simple organism produced a more complex organism or organisms, subsequently resulting in millions of extraordinarily complex biological systems.

Based on their so called “evolutionary synthesis,” evolutionists are merely GUESSING that given enough time a non-human “changed” into a human. That’s pretty farfetched! Macroevolution is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, nor is it supported by the fossil record. If you didn’t actually see a species experience change to the extent that it became an entirely different species, then you can’t state as a matter of fact that this metamorphosis ever occurred. Your amended Darwinian concepts prove to be mere assertions, not arguments. An argument is an opinion supported and/or demonstrated by reasonable evidence. An assertion is an opinion with no rational supporting evidence, and that’s all you evolutionists will have as long as you maintain your worldview.

Mkay, you win.. someone brang us here in a spaceship and we forgot all about it :D

I think they must of killed Nicole and Ron, too :(