Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 936 (805214)
04-16-2017 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Tangle
04-16-2017 7:28 PM


Re: alleles/mutations? Your example proves MY point
I read your article and watched the video. I end up wondering how they know it was a mutation, oddly enough. I thought at least they'd prove that much but I don't see that they did. They can date the change from peppered light to black moths to what they call a particular "mutation" but all it amounts to is the first appearance of the black type, the mutation part appears to be assumed, as it usually is. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any evidence here that it was a mutation. All it had to be was the selection of darker and darker types, and that can happen. You don't have to have a black one all of a sudden, the genome is capable of gradations, and if a series of darker and darker moths are selected, which they would be because of the dark surfaces they now have to deal with, eventually the darkest would dominate. This is ordinary microevolution or variation which is seen in every species, in this case subject to dramatic natural selection because of the change in the color of the background.
And my suspicion only increases when I watch the video. The scientist here says at one point (1:39) that "you might think that a species is a species, and is unchanging, but this example shows very graphically how that's not the case, that a species can change over time, and in this case it can change very rapidly over time ... because the environment has been changing. .. [which is] an obvious example of evolutionary change that is pretty incontrovertible. "
Good thing I did go to that link I guess, because it proves my point, not yours. This is ordinary variation within a species, not any kind of evidence for the ToE. I find this scientist's comment strangely nave considering that we KNOW that there is LOTS of variety possible in most species. I wouldn't be surprised if you could take those moths, black or white, and paint their usual trees red and you'd find them all turning red. From natural options built into their genome, not a mutation.
ABE: Dredge said it a lot more simply in Message 252 but since you insisted that it was a mutation and I remember that in the case of the pocket mice it did seem to have to be a mutation, I expected a similar kind of proof here. But it isn't the same, there is no need to assume a mutation was involved.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Tangle, posted 04-16-2017 7:28 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 936 (805243)
04-17-2017 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tangle
04-17-2017 3:01 AM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Yes, Faith, it's still a moth.
Uh huh, and any change at that level proves absolutely nothing about the ToE. In many cases changes continue to accumulate in some portion of a population which entails a loss of information (a loss of genetic diversity) from change to change, rather than the increase the ToE needs to be true. And such changes can be quite rapid too, over a matter of a few years since all it takes is reproductive isolation and normal seasonal reproduction.
proves, as you now accept, is that mutations happen and that in the correct enviromental conditions they are selected for and create a change in the population that allows it to survive.
Yes, that's a possibility but as a matter of melancholy fact, when I did go to your link, (see Message 254) read the article, saw the video, I realized there is no evidence whatever that this was a mutation. It's just a normal allele that produces a darker moth, that got selected on one of its rare appearances.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 3:01 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 4:27 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 268 of 936 (805250)
04-17-2017 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Tangle
04-17-2017 4:27 AM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Or all they found was the exact formula of the particular allele that was already present in the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 4:27 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 4:55 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 270 of 936 (805256)
04-17-2017 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Tangle
04-17-2017 4:55 AM


Re: alleles/mutations?
They don't know that, tangle. There's this segment of the gene that has the order of a transposon, which leads to the assumption that it was originally a mutation. Not evidence, assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 4:55 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 5:11 AM Faith has replied
 Message 273 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 6:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 272 of 936 (805260)
04-17-2017 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Tangle
04-17-2017 5:11 AM


Re: alleles/mutations?
I'm hardly the only creationist who thinks such things. The prevailing bias is in favor of a mutation, and that looks to me like all that is going on there. Peer review would see it the same way, because it's the prevailing understanding. But there isn't anything in the facts you gave that actually proves it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 04-17-2017 5:11 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 936 (805318)
04-17-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by caffeine
04-17-2017 2:03 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Yes a hundred or more new ones in every generation I understand? A few of which get passed on to the next generation. But that doesn't make them viable alternatives that further variation, since most of them are "neutral" which really means only slightly deleterious, not at a level to be weeded out by natural selection..
Clearly we're using these words in different ways. 'Viable' means 'capable of living and reproducing'. If organisms are living and reproducing with certain alleles, then these can make viable organisms.
Sorry if I'm not being clear, not sure exactly what this is about.
The hundred I mentioned aren't "viable" then, occurring in individuals where they can't be passed on, but supposedly might do something undesirable in the person's body?
As for furthering variation, this seems tautological. If generation 1 has alleles A and B, to which mutation adds a third allele C in the following generation, then generation 2 has more variation. I'm not entirely clear what alternative you're proposing.
The idea is that most of the mutations are in the individual's body but don't get passed on, those mutations we are all said to accumulate, most of which don't get passed on.
You need to show 1) that these are actually mutations and not naturally occurring variants
We just covered that a minute ago. There are hundreds of known alleles of this gene. Adam and Eve can have had at most four.
The question is what each of those alleles actually does. I accept that there are all these variations in the sequence, defining them as different alleles, but what exactly do they DO? How many of them just do what lots of others also do? We're talking about different versions of a particular gene, right? Presumably different versions, diffrerent alleles, exist to vary what the gene produces. If it's a gene for hair color one allele may be for brown, another for black, another for red and so on. If you have hundreds of such alleles, what does each of them do? In other words, why would more than four in a population be useful anyway? Especially when there may be a number of genes for the same trait that also have different alleles/versions, that combine with the other genes toward a particular effect in the organism.
and 2) if mutations, you need to show that all the variants actually DO something, since most mutations are neutral, not affecting the organism, to mildly deleterious, accumulating over time toward something undesirable.
Well that's why I chose this example, as it's one where we do have clear evidence that these variants are doing something - sorry if that wasn't clear. Some of the variants common amongst Tibetans have been demonstrated to protect against health problems associated with high altitude. Some lead to the production of more red blood cells; others have more complicated mechanisms that are a bit beyond my understanding of biochemistry
This raises all kinds of questions in my mind. How can such "mutations" really be mutations if they specifically and pointedly do things that are SO beneficial to the people in this situation? How do they get selected? Even if what selection does is merely favor the reproduction of the best equipped/fittest individuals wouldn't getting such capacities established throughout the population cost an awful lot of (way too many) losses on the way to getting them established? Often these stories of mutations do sound a lot like Lamarckianism, it's hard to see how mere selection could bring about such precise adaptations without far too much loss for any population to endure.
ABE: BUT, there is still the question how you know they are mutations anyway, as opposed to built in variations that simply accumulate, just as the mutations would supposedly do. How do you know the SOURCE of the alleles?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by caffeine, posted 04-17-2017 2:03 PM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 04-17-2017 8:32 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 296 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2017 1:41 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 288 of 936 (805347)
04-17-2017 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by herebedragons
04-17-2017 9:42 PM


Some questions
You say the ToE "works." I wonder if it's really the ToE that you are using.
The ToE assumes that variation is open-ended, that any species can vary and just go on varying until eventually you have to regard it as a different species. Is this assumption essential to your work?
Speciation is supposed to be that point, defined by the new variety or race's inability to breed with the parent population. The new species is assumed to have the ability to go on varying just as the previous population did. Is this assumption essential to your work?
Mutations, or random changes in the DNA, are considered to be the source of genetic variants, essential to the organism's ability to vary. Are mutations as the explanation for this variation essential to your work?
Or, could you please try to be more specific about exactly how the ToE is necessary to your work? Walk us through your thought process on a particular problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 9:42 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 297 of 936 (805498)
04-18-2017 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by caffeine
04-18-2017 1:41 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
I'm not sure I understand this question. How can something accumulate if it's already built in? We know that a diploid population which starts with only two individuals can only have a maximum of 4 versions of each gene. If we find more than four versions in a later generation; then something changed.
It's the traits that accumulate, based on the built-in alleles.
I'm supposing that all the other "alleles" are mutations, that none of them adds anything new to the function of the basic four for the trait governed by the gene, that some at least don't destroy the function so you still get the variation it governs despite the differences in the sequence. Those are the "neutral" ones? But in reality over time the neutral ones would most likely become deleterious.
Four for a gene should be all it takes to provide all the variety we see for any given trait, and this is greatly increased where there is more than one gene that governs that trait, which is fairly common, right?
I'm going to have to come backi to this.l
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2017 1:41 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 1:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 311 of 936 (805598)
04-19-2017 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2017 1:05 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
But in reality over time the neutral ones would most likely become deleterious.
How? What does this mean?
Any gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles," most of which of course don't do anything, is one of those parts of the genetic code that is especially prone to mutations. So such mutated "alleles" that get passed on are going to easily accumulate more mutations until finally they do something decidedly unbeneficial to the host. It's inevitable since mutations are inherently destructive.
Four for a gene should be all it takes to provide all the variety we see for any given trait ...
I have given you examples about the coat color and markings of dogs where this is not the case.
Perhaps I didn't see it or thought it too silly to bother with. Your job is to repeat your case. abe: And by the way, there are exceptions to most rules [/abe]
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 1:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 2:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 316 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 2:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 313 of 936 (805601)
04-19-2017 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by PaulK
04-19-2017 2:06 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Are you talking about variations in the function of the gene or in the sequences of its many alleles? I'm talking about the latter, and I'm supposing that those alleles are just the usual useless mutations, everything from "neutral" or having no effect on the function of the gene, to destructive. I'm further supposing that a gene only has those four natural alternatives or alleles that would have been possessed by Adam and Eve or any two individuals. So, taking this into account, what are you saying again?
abe: If the most "variable" genes are those that have to do with the immune system, rather than suggesting anything beneficial, it doesn't bode well for us. And we do seem to be prone to more and more immune deficiency diseases. A friend of mine died two years ago from a sudden onset of such a disease; he'd been quite healthy sand suddenly experienced severe muscular deterioration from such a disease I forget the name of. It was six months from its onset to his death.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 2:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 2:28 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 315 of 936 (805603)
04-19-2017 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by PaulK
04-19-2017 2:28 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
Anyway, I am saying that your point is wrong. Genes which gave a lot of variants must tolerate variation well - or selection would reduce the number of variants.
Not if they are predominantly the "neutral" kind that are unaffected by selection. They'll just stay in the system without effect until more changes accumulate to become destructive.
And there are even genes where it is likely beneficial to the species to have many variants.
Such as? If the "many variants" are neutral differences in the DNA sequence, that don't affect the function of the protein, they aren't going to be beneficial OR destructive. But if a mutation is destructive in itself, then such changes in the sequence are likely to be ticking time bombs that can become destructive as they continue to accumulate mutations. If they kill the host then they'll be selected out, yes, but since we're all accumulating lots of these mutations, an accumulation of such destructive effects is to be expected.
So genes with many variations are less likely to be "harmed" by mutation.
You keep using that term "variations" in a vague way. If a gene can only have four naturally occurring variations, all the different "alleles" that have a neutral effect would be ticking time bombs as I say above, prone to accumulate more mutations until finally they threaten the organism. And get selected out, but meanwhile lots more of those are accumulating.
However your original point as stated was even worse. An existing allele can only become harmful through environmental changes,
This is an overworked assumption that is no doubt not true where it counts: most genetic diseases are going to get you no matter what your "environment." It's all in the changes to the gene itself, not the environment. There's no way an immune-deficiency muscle wasting disease could possibly be beneficial no matter what the environment.
and there is no way to say that environmental changes are particularly likely to target genes with many alleles
Quite true but as I said in most cases the disease is in the allele itself and not in the environment.
(and no way to say that they would be more harmful to later variations than to a presumed original)
The "later changes" represent an accumulation of mutations that increases the chance of producing a disease, quite apart from the environment.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 2:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 3:05 PM Faith has replied
 Message 319 by jar, posted 04-19-2017 3:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 317 of 936 (805609)
04-19-2017 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2017 2:59 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
No, what I'm saying is that the accumulation of mutations in one sequence is what leads to destructive effects.
I'm sorry but it has been an instruction by Admin that you are to repeat your points. I know you prefer to create confusion and obstruction of the discussion, but it's really not permitted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 2:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2017 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 320 of 936 (805622)
04-19-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by PaulK
04-19-2017 3:05 PM


Re: alleles/mutations?
You are missing the point. The existence of many neutral variations would be evidence that the gene can tolerate variation. That is the point - selection is NOT eliminating variation. And the final sentence is completely wrong - accumulating changes, especially those that affect function, would be creating new variations, not making existing variations harmful.
The more mutations the more chance of something harmful developing because mutations are inherently destructive. Neutral changes are just ticking time bombs. They destroy some part of the sequence but the function survives. If more mutations destroy more of the sequence what can it do but lead ultimately to something harmful.
As I explained only a short while ago, in the immune system. The existence of variants mean that the species is less vulnerable to being wiped out by a single disease.
But not by a series of diseases that occur down the generations.
That is just nonsense. Accumulating variations make new alleles - and there is no reason that the presumed originals should be any less vulnerable (by definition all the other alleles must be mutated forms of the originals anyway so there is no distinction to be made)
Well, here what you are doing is asserting your different theory of mutations. I would think the proliferation of genetic diseases in the population would eventually disabuse you of your theory but I guess we haven't arrived at that point yet. My theory is that all mutations are destructive, that the genome was originally created to vary through four alternative gene forms and no more, and that all changes to those forms/alleles are inherently destructive even if there is enough flexibility to allow most of them to make no changes at all in the function. But if more accumulated along one sequence there is no way that sequence could become anything other than destructive in one way or another because all mutations distort the original healthy allele.
This is an overworked assumption that is no doubt not true where it counts: most genetic diseases are going to get you no matter what your "environment." It's all in the changes to the gene itself, not the environment. There's no way an immune-deficiency muscle wasting disease could possibly be beneficial no matter what the environment.
It is hardly an assumption. Do you really think that "an immune deficiency muscle wasting disease" is harmless ?
What?
That it will suddenly become harmful for some reason ? Because that is what it would mean for an allele to become harmful.
What?
I'm talking about a "neutral" mutation/allele that accumulates more mutations. \Enough such changes and the result is most likely to be harmful because of the destructive nature of mutations.
What you actually seem to be saying is not that much better. If a gene is tolerant of change then it is obviously less likely to suffer harmful mutations - that is practically a tautology.
What you are calling "tolerant of change" describes what is otherwise called "prone to mutations." There are different parts of the genome that are more or less vulnerable to mutation. A gene that has collected a huge number of "alleles" or mutations is one of the segments that is prone to mutations. That most of them are neutral is good for as long as it lasts, but further mutations run the risk of changing the allele into a disease-producer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 3:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by PaulK, posted 04-19-2017 3:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 327 of 936 (805675)
04-20-2017 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by herebedragons
04-17-2017 9:42 PM


An Alternative consistent and coherent model
You think the ToE is essential to your work. I understand the need for a theoretical framework but I have strong doubts that anything essential to the ToE could be useful in such work, so I consider it likely that you are confusing incidentals with the ToE.
In any case, let me offer you a working model as I see it:
  • God created separate Kinds in Eden.
  • The Fall affected all living things just as it did human beings. Death entered the world for all living things, death meaning every kind of deterioration, deformity and disease. Plants died anyway of course but disease and deformity affect them now as they didn't before the Fall.
  • The Second Law of Thermodynamics Entropy is a result of the Fall, an expression of the Death that came to all creation. (ABE: The Pedantry Mob has been having at the idea of the Second Law and since I'm interested in the facts and could not care less about such nitpicking distinctions I have substituted "entropy" as an attempt to say what I mean: LOSS rather than GAIN in all kinds of physical and biological systems. If "entropy" doesn't do it, I'll look for another term. Bunch of hyenas./ABE)
  • The deterioration includes genetic deterioration. Mutations are a legacy of the Fall, contributing only to deformity, disease and death.
  • If it weren't for the Fall, weren't for death, the necessary loss of genetic diversity in a population of living things would not lead to disease and death, it would just be the mechanism by which phenotypic variation is brought about. Even a creature with a huge amount of fixed loci, such as the cheetah, such as purebred animals before they discovered that those animals are genetically prone to various diseases and weaknesses. But since the Fall made that genetic situation a threat to the animal, efforts must be made to preserve genetic diversity over the desire for exotic purebreds. This is the situation conservationists have to deal with too, when creatures in the wild get themselves so naturally selected they are endangered by their own loss of genetic diversity.
  • "Fitness" is an overworked concept, useful in rare circumstances.
  • Natural Selection is also overworked: it is one of the many ways that new phenotypes are formed at the expense of genetic diversity, not the only and not even the most common. Simple population splits do the same thing without the carnage as it were.
  • If you split a population into two and preserve them both in reproductive isolation, both new populations will eventually develop new traits that distinguish them from each other and define them as subspecies.
  • If you separate a small population from a large one, and keep it in reproductive isolation, the smaller one will develop strikingly different new traits at the cost of great genetic decrease due to the new allele frequencies. The closer you approach to Founder Effect the more dramatic will be both of these effects.
  • Sometimes an evolving line of animals, or I suppose also plants, will reach a point where it can no longer breed with other members of its species. This usually describes a condition of genetic mismatch due to decreased genetic diversity in an inbreeding population.
  • Fossils of any living thing are merely varieties that lived before the Flood.
  • The genetic history of any living thing, except some sea creatures, goes back to the Flood.
Depends on what you want to do in your job of course, but I would think something along these lines should be a sufficient guide.
Cheers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : Change paragraph about Second Law of Thermodynamics
Edited by Faith, : capitalize "Entropy"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by herebedragons, posted 04-17-2017 9:42 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 6:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 353 by herebedragons, posted 04-20-2017 5:30 PM Faith has replied
 Message 382 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2017 3:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 390 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2017 7:32 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 339 of 936 (805750)
04-20-2017 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by NoNukes
04-20-2017 6:07 AM


A creationist model in progress
Sometimes an evolving line of animals, or I suppose also plants, will reach a point where it can no longer breed with other members of its species. This usually describes a condition of genetic mismatch due to decreased genetic diversity in an inbreeding population.
This belief would obviously affect biological inquiry.
Then I'd like to see HOW it would do so with HBD's scientific work.
It also happens to be that pet theory that you have spent countless hours failing to convince anyone of, and for which there is no biological evidence.
Failing to convince anyone at EvC is testimony to the prevailing bias and nothing more. Yes it is a pet idea of mine, it forms part of my overall model which I tried to spell out in that post. I believe it makes for a consistent coherent model which is all I had in mind as a comparison since HBD rightly says a framework is needed for what he does. Doesn't really matter if you are convinced of it, or he is, or anybody is (since the ToE is a bunch of garbage anyway), the point is that it does amount to a coherent model that could be applied.
At a minimum, if there is no evidence for this, ca-ca, then it cannot be taken as a postulate.
Of course I dispute that the ToE has any evidence, it's all speculation and imagination, so your objection is worth ca ca.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a result of the Fall, an expression of the Death that came to all creation.
What do you think that the second law of thermodynamics says, Faith?
Oh here come the Pedantic/Semantic Police. Could not care less NN how it is defined. I despise these word games you all substitute for debate about concepts. I've gone back to the post and exchanged "entropy" for the Second Law. Things running down, general deterioration and loss, sun going to burn itself out, and although it is denied by the ToE the fact that DNA is deteriorating and will ultimately do us all in, is part of this. But I put that in a separate entry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2017 6:07 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2017 3:08 PM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024