Why Diseases

No.Entropy is not the old saw "things keep getting worse." Entropy is the process by which energy is turned into work. That process leaves less energy avaliable for work, and more energy stuck in the form of heat.That's why it's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Because it's about energy turning into heat. The Second Law is the reason chemcial reactions happen. The Second Law is the reason that a pot gets hot when you put it over a fire. It's the reason life is possible, because life depends on chemistry happening a certain way.I know you'd like to point to the Second Law as observably evil, but there's nothing evil about it. If you define the Second Law as "things just keep getting worse" then you're not talking about any physics that makes any sense. (How do you quantify order? How would you know it's decreasing if you can't measure it in the first place?) All you've done is erect another strawman.

LM,The human genome is just a small fraction of the real entity, you and I. Cascading protein factors, many of which are environmentally driven, make the mapped human genome as arbitrary as knowing nothing at all.Take my identical twin (or so I'm told):
He's an engineer, I'm a physician,
He's a smoking alcoholic, I loathe Et-OH and smoking
He's divorced, I'm 14 years married
He's zon-atheist-evo, I'm fundy-YEC who believes in eternal redemption.
Etc.There's nothing clonish about my split-egg identical twin other than a few superficial traits. The gene-map means almost nothing.And yet we can go back to any 'mutation-hot-spot' example on this forum (last year's threads) and see the hoax and fallacy of the misnomer in every example. APRIORI adaptation-spot is always the real name.Now, if we can progress past this folly of beneficial mutation nonsense, then we might (crudely) observe:1) Environmental forces, including 'choices' of you and I, hypothetically, cause disease/accidents.
2) Non-environmental forces and genetics do program our empirical destruction, if you will (we'd probably both agree). I.e., We are both programmed to stop secreting GH (growth harmone) at certain time intervals. Elasticity of arteries and muscles are thus decaying over time, etc., etc. --> disease and destruction of our bodies.
3) Innately, human bodily members are born (or unborn) to die at some point, based on billions of observed humans witnessed as decaying and dying.
4) We are living in a sadistic sin-filled curse that may or may not have a redemptive restorative component to save us. To deny such a miserable curse is utter folly.
5) Hypothesis: "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6.23 KJV) ..."but the gift of God is eternal life" Wages means payment in cash (I think). Now, this hypothesis seems to cover 1,2,3, and 4 above in that we are paid in death, every whit, for every transgression, innate or otherwise.Now, don't blame me for coming up with this hypothesis. It does make the most sense however.

PhilipConcerning your position on pleaentness being a state of being as a person interested in the truth I merely thought you would be willing to back up your contention.Suit yourself old boy. If you have no evidence to present I will not press you for it. I am curious,though,if you would know what the effect of eliminating dopamine or endorphins would have on a person.As for entropy perhaps you missed my website references to help you referesh your understanding of entropy
http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html
AND
http://www.hevanet.com/kort/ENTROPY1.HTMDo take the time to eliminate your misunderstanding of this important fact pertaining to the very existence of life.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Wrong. In thermodynamics, Entropy is a measure of the heat energy that is unavailable to do work. It has nothing to do with any 'law of decay', whatever that is.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Philip, No, it isn't. Consult a physics book.Mark

quote:

---

The human genome is just a small fraction of the real entity, you and I. Cascading protein factors, many of which are environmentally driven, make the mapped human genome as arbitrary as knowing nothing at all.

---

And you're a physician? What is arbitrary about the genome? Ask a cancer patient if they think the mutations in their genome are arbitrary. If you want to talk about psychology, it may be arbitrary, but if you want to talk about biological and morphological affects, DNA is anything but arbitrary.

quote:

---

Take my identical twin (or so I'm told):
He's an engineer, I'm a physician,
He's a smoking alcoholic, I loathe Et-OH and smoking
He's divorced, I'm 14 years married
He's zon-atheist-evo, I'm fundy-YEC who believes in eternal redemption.
Etc.

​

There's nothing clonish about my split-egg identical twin other than a few superficial traits. The gene-map means almost nothing.

---

If your brother has cystic fibrosis, do you think you would be asymptomatic? If you were 7 feet tall, would you expect your brother to be 3 foot 5? You list nothing by psychological and philisophical stances, where is the biology? Could those superficial traits mean you look identical? Hmm, strange how that identical arbitrary DNA can control so much.

quote:

---

And yet we can go back to any 'mutation-hot-spot' example on this forum (last year's threads) and see the hoax and fallacy of the misnomer in every example. APRIORI adaptation-spot is always the real name.

---

Mutational hot spots are known and understood. Funny thing is, no organisms have been found that mutate at the same exact base due to the same exact stimuli beyond what would be expected if mutations were random. Why is that? Perhaps we could start a new thread or we could restart the old one?

quote:

---

1) Environmental forces, including 'choices' of you and I, hypothetically, cause disease/accidents.

---

How do good choices confer protection from malaria due to heme type.

quote:

---

2) Non-environmental forces and genetics do program our empirical destruction, if you will (we'd probably both agree). I.e., We are both programmed to stop secreting GH (growth harmone) at certain time intervals. Elasticity of arteries and muscles are thus decaying over time, etc., etc. --> disease and destruction of our bodies.

---

Thank goodness. Overpopulation would spell the doom of any population, not to mention the inability to adapt to changing environments.

quote:

---

3) Innately, human bodily members are born (or unborn) to die at some point, based on billions of observed humans witnessed as decaying and dying.

---

Covered above.

quote:

---

4) We are living in a sadistic sin-filled curse that may or may not have a redemptive restorative component to save us. To deny such a miserable curse is utter folly.

---

You call it a curse, I call it life. A subjective judgement, nothing less, nothing more. [/quote]5) Hypothesis: "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6.23 KJV) ..."but the gift of God is eternal life" Wages means payment in cash (I think). Now, this hypothesis seems to cover 1,2,3, and 4 above in that we are paid in death, every whit, for every transgression, innate or otherwise.Now, don't blame me for coming up with this hypothesis. It does make the most sense however. [/quote]The hypothesis that the philosophy of the Bible fits in with observable life and death cycles of all organisms on Earth? Sure, I'll agree with that. That the Bible is correct in regards to species diversity, I really can't agree.

Dear SL,"Pleasantness" in all honesty has
1) a metaphysical (i.e., spiritual or supernatural) aspect to it and 2) a physical (i.e., natural) aspect to it.You will find that those who ascribe entirely to #2 will ridicule #1 and vice versa.There are many (fundy-YECs for example) who may claim to be "born of the spirit" (John 3), "born again", "quickened from the dead" and will think that any natural idea of 'pleasantness' is dead.Likewise, many Evo's reject being spiritual and ground their science in hyper-empiricism.I admit the former, you'd might admit the latter. My science of pleasantness includes metaphysical observations which you will undoubtedly scorn until, peradventure, you get "born again", "born of the spirit (metaphysical), and accept metaphysics in a theoretical vein.

Dear LM,Please see my reply to SL and accept my stubborn hand-waving at this time. I do respect your indepth rebuttal and sincerety but don't know how to respond very economically, with our time constraints and priorities (yours and mine).I'll try to discuss one or 2 hit points, though, that you may wish to further debate.