Evolution works in mysterious ways

Matthew Faithfull

digital man wrote:

You see, it's very difficult to believe anything that someone who has an irrational faith in a fantasy being says. You do see that, don't you?

Of course but then I don't so what's your point?

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

soap brain

I can see two immediate problems with what you're saying: I) Your definition of 'de-evolution', I think, actually IS evolution, albeit a sketchily defined one. Who says that evolution necessarily leads to the ability to survive a rapid change in the environment? The dodo was very well adapted to its little island, but then humans came and buggered them over and now they're all dead. It happens. II) You're probably falling into a common trap of equating entropy with disorder. In fact, your definition of 'disorder' is probably just what you find 'aesthetically displeasing'. Entropy is the measure of the unavailability of a closed system's energy to do work, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that it increases over time until it reaches equilibrium. The fact is, organisms CAN decrease their entropy because the Earth isn't a closed system - it includes the Sun. The law refers to the overall entropy, and although the organisms can seemingly defy it, the Sun more than makes up for it in how much energy it gives off.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

Oakman

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

I think, actually IS evolution

Of course it is. Evolution is a word that describes genetic changes in a species. Only the un- and ill- informed think that it implies moving from lower to higher or vice versa.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

Yeah, I was pretty sure, but I didn't want to assert anything too strongly if I wasn't 100%.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

Matthew Faithfull

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Your definition of 'de-evolution', I think, actually IS evolution

That's part of the problem but can easily be solved because it is clearly impossible by this mechanism to evolve a mammal from a bacterium. You cannot do that by loosing information, by specializing, or what is known as 'natural slection'. No mechanism == impossible. Evolution was proposed as an explanation for the existence of observed species, not as some para-theoretical self validating mental framework. It fails to provide the explanation and is therefore so much historical junk science.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

You're probably falling into a common trap of equating entropy with disorder

No I'm not, I'm equating information entropy with energy entropy, the rules are same. The unavailability of a genomes information to do work increases over time until it reaches equilibrium. The law refers to a population overall and over time not any specific individual. There is no equivalent of the Sun, no external highly ordered or highly powered source from which to derive function which maintaining the second law.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Christian Graus

I'm curious to know if platypus DNA proves evolution to anyone who doesn't already believe in evolution ?

Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

Matthew Faithfull

Oakman wrote:

Evolution is a word that describes genetic changes in a species.

:laugh: Is that the 4th or 5th redefinition since it was proposed as an explanation for the existence of observed species, higher and lower. If what you say is correct then it has become meaningless and all conclusions based on said 'theory' are invalid. As I said, junk science.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

73Zeppelin

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Zepp and others loose their rag and post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse,

Stuff it, you tool! :laugh:

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Yes but probably not one you'd accept. We've been around this debate before, I dismiss evolution as the pile of crap it is. Zepp and others loose their rag and post streams of unsubstantiated random abuse, I laugh, you post links to lots of evidence for de-evolution misdiagnosed as evidence for evolution, proving my point but not seeing it and everyone goes away none the wiser. I can only suggest that you look for yourself, you're more capable than me in math and shouldn't have any problem demoshing the paper thin arguments of idiots like Richard Dawkins. The more you look the less evolution and more de-evolution you will see.

You're so crazy it's, well, crazy!

Matthew Faithfull

Anyone capable of drawing reasoned conclusions from analysing platypus DNA would surely be smart enough to realize that you cannot 'prove' anything scientifically, only falsify propositions. If you mean really mean 'convince' then no, evolution is no more capable of explaining platypus DNA than it is of explaining mouse DNA so it wouldn't convince anyone but a dupe.

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Oakman

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

If what you say is correct then it has become meaningless and all conclusions based on said 'theory' are invalid.

Because you and your creationist friends have consistently misunderstood the Theory of Evolution (or worse, consistently misrepresented it, lying in the name of your god) does not mean that evolutionary biologists are responsible for your lack of understanding or explaining to you how you became deluded. You dug yourself into the hole, it is up to you to get out.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

soap brain

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

That's part of the problem but can easily be solved because it is clearly impossible by this mechanism to evolve a mammal from a bacterium. You cannot do that by loosing information, by specializing, or what is known as 'natural slection'. No mechanism == impossible. Evolution was proposed as an explanation for the existence of observed species, not as some para-theoretical self validating mental framework. It fails to provide the explanation and is therefore so much historical junk science.

Umm, yes you can. A bacterium doesn't 'lose' information, it mutates randomly. There is no purpose in evolution, just a consequence of a slightly different animal being slightly better at surviving. Give me ONE decent example of an organism 'de-evolving', completely counter to Darwinian evolution. Fact is, evolution was proposed before a heap of stuff was known about molecular biology and stuff like that, and it agreed wonderfully. Tell me honestly: if there was actually a decent counter-theory to Natural Selection, do you think scientists would still call it a Law?

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

No I'm not, I'm equating information entropy with energy entropy, the rules are same. The unavailability of a genomes information to do work increases over time until it reaches equilibrium. The law refers to a population overall and over time not any specific individual. There is no equivalent of the Sun, no external highly ordered or highly powered source from which to derive function which maintaining the second law.

The sun comes into it, because it adds energy into a system through photosynthesis and probably other things. Animals eat the plants, digest the sugars and use the extra energy to build cells and move and eat more and whatever. I'm not intimately familiar with the mechanism, and I'm not going to read it now, but I'm sure there are people here who could explain it to you better than me. Wait...did you just say that the sun ISN'T highly powered? :wtf:

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

Oakman

73Zeppelin wrote:

You're so crazy it's, well, crazy!

The Illuminati are behind the Theory of Evolution - probably the Swiss Gnomes.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Matthew Faithfull

:laugh: No, it is our message that has remained exactly the same and that of 'evolutionary' ( i.e. unscientifically biased ) biologists that has changed to contradict itself so many times I've lost count. Nice of you to admit that evolution no longer claims the development of the higher organisms form the lower anymore. Yet another false claim laid to rest, that at least is progress. :)

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

73Zeppelin

For sure. It's the Great Deceit (TM)! Faithfull, lives in his own private fantasy world. He's delusional to some extent. You have to forgive him for his erroneous view of the world. It's his defense mechanism.

73Zeppelin

What contradiction? Where is the evidence it's wrong? Where is the evidence for your view? You spout tonnes of words, but they're meaningless.

Oakman

Christian Graus wrote:

I'm curious to know if platypus DNA proves evolution to anyone who doesn't already believe in evolution

I'm not sure that belief enters into it. The Theory is pretty well spelled out. If, by using it, one is able to more thoroughly understand what happened to create the biosphere as it is today and how/why it changed from what was present two hundred thousand years ago then it is a tool to be used. If stating that the world was created in 4004 BC, complete with aged fossils, and that "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown." provides a methodology by which the biosphere can be understood, then we need to adopt this alternate viewpoint. So far, I've seen no evidence that Evolution doesn't explain the world better than Bishop Usher, ymmv as, obviously, does Mr. Faithful's

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Matthew Faithfull

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

A bacterium doesn't 'lose' information, it mutates randomly.

Fundamental miunderstanding alert. To mutate randomly IS to loose infomration where you have a sufficient information density. All organisms more complex than a bacterium, a no dount some bateria have sufficient information density to be 'unevolvable' by random mutation.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

The sun comes into it,

No it does not because it doesn't add information.

Ravel H. Joyce wrote:

Wait...did you just say that the sun ISN'T highly powered?

No, I said it was not involved and there was no equivalent source in terms of information, implying that the sun IS highly powered as it clearly is relative to the energy differentials in our bioshpere. :)

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

Oakman

Wrong, but thanks for playing. As a parting gift, we're giving you a brand-new all-aluminum foil beanie!!!

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Matthew Faithfull

The evidence for my view is the very evidence you yourself could link to for your view if you were capable of anything other than carping. My words mean what they say, how about yours?

"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)

soap brain

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

Fundamental miunderstanding alert. To mutate randomly IS to loose infomration where you have a sufficient information density. All organisms more complex than a bacterium, a no dount some bateria have sufficient information density to be 'unevolvable' by random mutation.

No it isn't. Maybe you don't understand the word 'random'. Probably the word 'mutate' as well.

Matthew Faithfull wrote:

No it does not because it doesn't add information.

It adds ENERGY, which is used to build DNA, RNA, proteins, etc.

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.