Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Let us reason together.
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3325 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 60 of 152 (32805)
02-21-2003 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by drummachine
02-19-2003 8:01 PM


Hello Drummachine,
Answering your total list of, I believe plagerized, questions would take too long but one of them is easy.
Homochirality. The incidence of homochirality appears to be a kinetic and not thermodynamic phenomina. I have had to move offices and so no longer have the papers here with me but I have to papers at home and will try to post them tonight if I have time. Essentially the rate of formation of homochiral chains of polynucleotides is slightly faster than the rate of formation of heteronucleotides, probably due to increased stability from stacking interactions. This faster kinetic rate of formation of homonucleotide chains means that over a reasonably short period of time that the homonucleotide chains will predominate. The reason for the predominance of L- vs the R- forms appears to be due to a very slight advantage in this form in the kinetic race as well.
I find it interesting that these papers are a couple of years old and yet the creationists, and people that claim to be in creation "science", have never cited them. They just go back and site the old thermo arguements. Not to mention that this is pre-biotic chemistry and has nothing really to do with evolutionary theory, another error constantly made by creationists. Hope that this answers one of your questions, although I rather doubt that it will.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by drummachine, posted 02-19-2003 8:01 PM drummachine has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3325 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 113 of 152 (34749)
03-20-2003 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by drummachine
03-19-2003 7:58 PM


'Splainin vs Understanding
Drummachine, to answer your question
quote:
have I not explained evolution
The answer is no, you have not. For example, your constant use of non-biological events to attempt to denigrate biological evolution (ie: your dishonest or ignorant linking of cosmology, the start and evolution of the universe with biological evolution, which only depends on the presence of lifeforms and an environment) demonstrate a lack of any firm, or even shaky to be honest, grasp of what biological evolution means. Ditto w.r.t. the concept of randomness. Your claims that evolution is random is completely unfounded; IMO you are confusing random with non-directed, they are not the same. As has been explained to you and to other repeatedly evolution follows natural laws, both w.r.t. physics and chemistry as well as having "biological laws" of its own although these laws are more based on probability and are just not being understood and defined. Your attempts to make statements concerning 2LOT are even more ludicrous and display a complete lack of understanding of how thermodynamics works, both in simpler chemical systems as well as in living systems. As has been repeatedly explained the entropy of systems does increase but this says nothing about the individual components of those systems. Even when organisms/species or environments increase in complexity the overall entropy of the system still goes up due to the conversion of energy to more useable forms by the organisms, and the loss of useable energy which occurs during the conversion process. As to the "links" comment. You really need to understand your links before you post them. It is just a better approach.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by drummachine, posted 03-19-2003 7:58 PM drummachine has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3325 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 116 of 152 (34779)
03-20-2003 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by drummachine
03-20-2003 11:28 AM


Like I said.....
You have not explained evolution. What you are describing is a largely erroneous creationist view of evolution or a mixed up combination of certian humanist philosophical concepts with pieces of cosmology and biology thrown in without regard for their proper meaning or context.
For example,
quote:
Evolution: It is a humanist philosophy that says apart from an infinite creator God man determines truth.
False, evolution pre-dates humanist philosophy (unless you include the Enlightonment philosophers as humanist, most do not and with good reason) and does not attempt to determine Truth, although is does attempt to determine both cause and fact.
quote:
Man believes the machine of the human life system came together by chance.
False, people who understand evolution consider humans to be a part of a long chain of evolved organisms, the evolution of which follows natural laws which can be found in chemistry, physics and probability. The sole "random" components are in fact really undetermined and non-predetermined mutational and environmental effects.
quote:
Man believes he can age date the earth even though he cannot accurately.
Error here as well; however, for the sake of debate many on these boards have posted the proofs of dating techniques, please post your refutation based on chemistry and physics.
quote:
Man believes everything came together by chance so there is no accountability to a creator who has clearly shown Himself.
False on two fronts, the first part is explained above in refuting your spurious claims concerning percieved randomness. The second is in that your "God" has never clearly shown him or herself. A book is not proof. Although that leads to an area of debate curently in another thread.
Drum, the only thing which you ave shown is a willingness to propogate a spurious and erroneous perception of what you think that evolution is, but not what it is in fact.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by drummachine, posted 03-20-2003 11:28 AM drummachine has not replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3325 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 118 of 152 (34822)
03-20-2003 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by drummachine
03-20-2003 7:14 PM


Answers (sort of)
Drum and Admin, hope that you don't mind me replying to this one.
quote:
explain evolution
(Q1)...The very question I would have is this, "Do you believe everything came together out of nothing without a designer?"
.(Q2)..Rather then are belief or what we assume about the origins of life?
(Q3)...In the beginning God or in the beginning dirt. Thank you.
OK, sorry if it looks like I have chopped your question up but it is actually several in one. I would like to stick to evolution, your three actually involve more about cosmology and/or abiogenesis. I am sorry to harp about this but you will not find the beginning of either the cosmos or of life in any part of evolution via natural selection (or related mechanistic explainations of how evolution occurs). It is kind of like asking a catholic when they are going on Haj, or asking a Buddist to explain their belief in the trinity, it is a meaningless question from the get go. Now, on to evolution w.r.t. biology.
Evolution: Changes in the life forms which make up the biosphere.
Theory of evolution: a partial or total theory of HOW evolution occurs.
Natural Selection: the common term given to the mechanistic theory of descent with modification, also called Darwinian evolution. The initial factual basis for this is a combination of the geochronological and geographical distribution of fossilized and living species, as well as studies on general morphology. Later studies in genetics and molecular biology give further support to the broad general thesis, despite what Peter Borger and TB say, Hi Guys.
Now, this says nothing about a diety, what it does say is that the life forms on this planet, based on the above reasons, have a, or a group of common ancestors. That they have changed through time to the forms observed now. And that all of this can be explained without requireing overt action from a supernatural being.
How is that for a general start. Hey, maybe we can get this debate back on track in this thread . If you want to discuss abiogenesis or cosmology maybe we should split this tread into three, one per area.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by drummachine, posted 03-20-2003 7:14 PM drummachine has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024