Evolution: a red herring?

. . . So in fact you might as well have said - In 100 years of breeding and mutational experiments on fruitflys none has ever produced a tortoise that could dance the Macarena.

Why do you say this? Even if mutations were studied for pure mutations sake, with no intent on looking for a specific outcome, does this invalidate the observed results? Isn't the sheer amount of data collected of some value? You seem to be saying that if we don't design an experment to find A, the fact that we find the opposite of A in all the random trials negates the usefulness of the data altogether.....Please cite one scientific reference of a genetic mutation experiment in which the mutation creates a new species that is more viable IN ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

Only someone with no familiarity of either evolutionary theory or experimental genetics would expect such a thing.

But isn't this the very thing that you expect from evolution? Perhaps I do misunderstand modern evolutionary theory. I was under the impression that evolution teaches that through mutations, nature creates new more viable species (more viable within the context of its environment). If this is incorrect then let me know. I came here to hear some valid arguments that would disprove my opinion that evolution is a belief system.It seems that instead of getting honest debate about science that the people here mainly just want to make bigoted accusations and condesending remarks.

. . . Please, please tell me the name of your supervsior... he needs to be shot for his own good!

My SUPERVISOR was Ffancon William, he is from the UK, perhaps you have heard of him. We was the leader in his field of radical cation chemistry.I really don't understand the communication methods of people in this forum. It seems that disagreement is just cause for insult. I don't believe I have resorting to insulting anyone in this forum and so I am just wondering if this is the kind of thing I should expect from here on? If so I guess I should just leave. If you don't have anything to add other than insult then I guess its just about making yourself feel superior and not about debating issues.

...Seriously though, how can you claim to be a scientist... and a chemist!!!!... and spout crap like this? Do you know what a LAW is? I guess that I as a relativist have spent my academic life working on nonsense as I have been breaking Newton's Law of Gravitation? Not to mention all of Newton's Laws of Motion... and in my work on quantum gravity, I guess I'm also guilty of breaking all three Thermodynamic Laws. Oh dear..

Are you saying that chemical evolution does not violate the Law of Biogenesis? If the Law of Biogenesis states that life ONLY comes from life then is it not a violation of this law to assert that the first organism had to evolve from non-living material? Or are you saying that the Law of Biogenesis is only valid after the first organism came into existence? If so then on what do you base this exception?

Sorry, I made a spelling error in the last post. My supervisor was Ffancon WilliamS (not William).

. . . Tell me, if you believe in an absolute Biogenetic Law

Whether or not I believe a law is of little consequence. I can say I don't give a darn about the law of gravity and refuse to believe it, but if I step off a 10 story building it will not matter if I believe in the law or not, I still will be forced to follow that law and fall to my death.Same with Biogensis. Its a law for a reason. The reason is that its never been experimentally violated. To disbelieve this law is to believe in spontaneous generation, which has NEVER been observed.

. . .perhaps you would tell me what absolute definition of life you are using?

I believe its generally accepted that life exhibits the following:1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

. . . The term "aromatherapy" has been applied to such a wide range of products that almost anything which contains essential oils is likely to be called an "aromatherapy product", rendering the term somewhat meaningless in that context.[/qs]

What this has to do with evolution I don't know but for what its worth I agree with you. When I taught the for credit course at Indiana University I was mere the lead instructor and there where many guest instructors according their specific aread of expertise. The course was an intro course investigating what aromatherapy really is. I had nothing to do with the teaching of how to use aromatherapy or made any claims to whether or not it was a valid therapy useful for anything beyond making someone feel better.

. . . So enjoy your millions based upon the gullibility of your 'marks.'

​

I can see why a holistic huckster would object to mainstream science as a threat to their pocketbook but I think you are overreaching here. Most peope here don't believe a 'smell doctor' carries much weight beyond their expertise in reliving the gullible of thier worldly goods.

Anglagard, what have I done to you to deserve your attacks? I do not object mainstream science, but try to defend science when it is science. You know nothing about me or my business. If you had bothered to read a little bit about our company you would see that we are a wholesale and bulk supplier of essential oils to mainstream industries such as fragrance manufacturers, flavor companies, soap makers, cosmetic companies, etc. Of course aromatherapy companies buy from us too but they are a minor portion of our customer base. We mainly supply raw materials to companies who manufacture finished products. How does that make me a holistic huckster? The fact is when a customer tries to get us to make claims about any therapeutic benefit of a particular essential oil we always tell them that this is outside the scope of our expertise. My expertise is in the chemical breakdown of essential oils and in flavor and fragrance duplication by using GC/MS analytical techniques. If someone asks about the chemistry of an essential oil I will share the information with them but I do not personally promote any medicinal use of essential oils. But regardless of this what does my current profession have to do with my educational background? You don't like my profession so you just discount the fact that I have a Ph.D. in chemistry from one of the top 50 chemistry departments in the country that worked in conjunction with Oakridge National Laboratory and was supported by the Department of Energy? I know you don't think much of a "smell doctor" but you obviously don't understand the science that goes into such a field.I am getting nothing from you but crazed insults. Don't you have anything productive to say? I am still waiting for the list of your degrees. I hope you will be as open about your educational background as I have been. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Why is it that laws are only "useful approximations" when they don't do what we want them to do. The fact still remains that no one can give an experimental example of where these "useful approximations" have been violated which is why they are laws. I am going to give you the proof in very basic form, if you understand the laws of thermodynamics then you will see the logic of the proof. I have wasted too much time here already so I don't want to waste any more time explaining thermodynamics to you (please don't try to say I don't understand thermodynamics because my doctoral work is in the area of physical chemistry and I graduated with a 4.0 GPA). The only loophole in the proof is to say that these laws don't apply to this special situation, much like many evolutionists will say that the law of biogenesis does not apply to the very first organism but only to everything that followed it. Of course this is the kind of reasoning is only wishful thinking and not experimentally verifiable. OK, so here goes:Either the universe has 1) always existed or 2) not always existed . I can think of no other possibilities, let me know if you can.
If the universe has always existed then you have to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy and is most commonly stated as "The entropy of an isolated system, not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." Entropy is also often described, although somewhat inaccurately, as a "measure of disorder". The important thing to remember is that when energy is converted from one form to another the conversion is not entirely efficient. Some of the original energy that was converted (for example in going from chemical energy to mechanical energy) is always lost to the environment (typically in the form of heat) and this lost energy has become less "available" to do useful work than it was previously. In simple terms then, entropy is essentially a measure of the degree to which energy has lost its usefulness and this applies to the universe as a whole. At some real point in time, when all the "hot" objects have cooled and all the "cold" objects have been somewhat warmed up the entire universe will be "lukewarm" so to speak. This of course applies to all forms of potential energy and you may have heard some physicists refer to this as the "heat death" of the universe - a time when entropy has reached its maximum because, although all the energy in the universe still exists (still satisfying the 1st law of thermodynamics), none of this energy is available to do any work. In short, the fact that we exist demonstrates that possibility 1 cannot be true because if the universe is infinitely old then such a state (the heat death) would have already been reached.So then, if you correctly say that the universe 2) has not always existed then you have two more sub-possibilities:
2a) the universe created itself or 2b) Did not create itselfI hope you can see quite clearly that if the universe created itself then we have a little problem called the first law of thermodynamics. Let me know if you need me to expound on what the 1st law is in real terms. This leaves us with the only logical choice, from a thermodynamic perspective which is 2b) the universe did not create itself. If it did not create itself then by simple deduction we have to conclude that the universe was created by an external force, a creator.I don't think you can argue against this except by saying that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the universe as a whole but it would be hard to make such an argument based on known science. You have to invent something new to get around it, something not testable by science, a religion if you will. Atheism in the end is just another religion which is based on faith. An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist he can only have faith that God does not exist. What is faith but merely the belief in something non-provable?

. . . Isn't there some industry that has as it whole basis the concept of improving things by mutations? It's called Genetic Modification or something?

​

I know I'm old and slow, but doesn't that show that genes can be changed in ways that are advantageous?

​

If there are enough examples of genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability to support a whole industry, doesn't that kinda blow the idea that it is impossible out of the water?

I am no expert on gene therapy but I think this field is used to correct DEFECTIVE genes which are a result of mutation in the first place. This is alot different than the idea of introducing or modifying normal DNA to give rise to a more viable human or even another species of human altogether, which would be the analogy needed in order to support evolution in this context.Please people, don't get me wrong here. It is not my point to disprove the theory of evolution, I don't believe it can be disproved at this time in our history. I am only trying to get people to see that we are throwing basic scientific principles out the window in order to accept evolution without question.Can anyone here say, without any doubt, that its impossible for the theory of evolution to be wrong? It would seem by some of the comments here that we have some participants who have the knowledge of absolute truth because they get angry and just down right mean when challenged instead of engaging in thoughtful discourse.I thought the whole purpose of this forum, was to discuss both creation and evolution. It appears as though I am the only one here who doubts evolution so why not just change your forum to the Evolution forum. Is there anyone else out there on the other side of this?

Dear Crashfrog,I am just wondering on what basis that you proclaim to have a better grasp on thermodynamics than I do? I am not saying that you don't, I would not be so presumptuous because I know nothing about you, but was just wondering what your educational credentials are. Its easy to say I don't understand something as well as you do, and I may be able to accept that if you give me a good reason to believe it. But what have you done to demonstrate your expertise in the area of thermodynamics or in science in general? If you don't have an advanced chemical degree then is it possible that its you who doesn't fully understand thermodynamics? And if you don't really understand it fully then of course you would never now that you don't understand it. If your going to throw stones at me then I hope you at least have a shield to block the return fire. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that you have more academic experience in the area of thermodynamics than I do but how can you expect me to take your criticisms without knowing your background.Already I can see that you have abandoned all logic to emotion at this point because of your statement:

. . .There's no evidence for God. That's the proof he doesn't exist

This is just irrational, no other way to describe it. By this logic then we should never look for evidence of anything since the current state of lacking evidence for a particular thing or idea is all we need to prove that the thing does not exist. Does anyone else here find this to be quite "unscientific"? But then perhaps I am the irrational one? I have to consider that possibility because only an irrational person would rule out that its impossible that he is being irrational ;-)

. . . There's no faith required to be an atheist, which you would know if you had ever talked to any of them

I know many atheists. The more logical ones realize that their belief requires a step of faith, just as any religion does. You can retaliate with emotional diatribe all you want but you cannot get around the logic of my argument as long as we can agree that words actually mean something. Let's look up the definition of the word FAITH. To make it easy just go over to Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com . In the current context its clear that we are talking about the 2nd definition of the word which states:"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."Can you provide a reasonable scientific proof that God does not exist? Of course not. Therefore you are only left with your FAITH that he does not exist (please don't tell me that I can't prove that God does exist because even if I cannot it still irrelevant to your faith). And this greatly offends you because somehow you have come to a place in your life which equates faith with ignorance. Not everything in this life can be answered by science. You equate faith with ignorance because you don't want to fathom the possibility that you might be wrong, because the thought of being wrong on this issue is terrifying. In the end, like the law of gravity, your belief has no effect on the reality of the situation.