Changes

:::::::# That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."

:::::::# That life consists of only ''one'' self-replicating process. In life, you have several--indeed, hundreds, each conforming to a different "kind."

:::::::# That one "kind" ''ever'' gave rise to another, radically different kind. Going back to those lectures I had, and again I have seen no updates worthy of the name: the evolutionistic paradigm that I was taught, stated that a [[gene]] is a mutated [[virus]], that [[mitochondria]] and [[chloroplast]]s were originally independent organisms, and that ''all species'' more complex than viruses (with the possible exception of sponges) derived from [[coelenterate]]s. All [[protist]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s--they all came from one kind, the coelenterates. Now ''that'' you can't show. And my proof? Evolutionists speak of "missing links"--hypothetical species intermediate in form between two species that are known. Guess what? ''The missing links are still missing''. Of course they are. You can't find a never-was. And none of your mathematical algorithms will find a single piece of tangible evidence to suggest that they ever existed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::# That one "kind" ''ever'' gave rise to another, radically different kind. Going back to those lectures I had, and again I have seen no updates worthy of the name: the evolutionistic paradigm that I was taught, stated that a [[gene]] is a mutated [[virus]], that [[mitochondria]] and [[chloroplast]]s were originally independent organisms, and that ''all species'' more complex than viruses (with the possible exception of sponges) derived from [[coelenterate]]s. All [[protist]]s, [[plant]]s, and [[animal]]s--they all came from one kind, the coelenterates. Now ''that'' you can't show. And my proof? Evolutionists speak of "missing links"--hypothetical species intermediate in form between two species that are known. Guess what? ''The missing links are still missing''. Of course they are. You can't find a never-was. And none of your mathematical algorithms will find a single piece of tangible evidence to suggest that they ever existed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Sure, the mathematical foundation won't tell you where to look for missing links in biological evolution. So, what. But it will tell you that the missing links that creationist are looking for, something like half cow half man, doesn't exist. This kind of missing link is nothing but a strawman. It also tells you that at no stage the successor was radically different. It tell you that you make best progress if the changes are moderate. And some of the missing links that science was looking for they did find. Do you really want to tell me that you faith depends on such a benign event as a person who digs up a fossil in Canada that is somewhere in-between land and sea mammal? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Sure, the mathematical foundation won't tell you where to look for missing links in biological evolution. So what? You mentioned yourself that probabilistic and stochastic explanations predict averages, and not particulars. But it will tell you that the missing links that creationist are looking for, something like half cow half man, doesn't exist. This kind of missing link is nothing but a creationist strawman. It also tells you that at no stage the successor was radically different. It tell you that you make best progress if the changes are moderate. And some of the missing links that science was looking for they did find. Do you really want to tell me that you faith depends on such a benign event as a person who digs up a fossil in Canada that is somewhere in-between land and sea mammal? [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

---

---

::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.  

::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.  

::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

::::::Glad that you admit that life is connected to the rest of the universe. Life is very orderly indeed, but e.g. the fusion of hydrogen in the sun leads to such a big increase in entropy, that every decrease on earth accomplished by life can easily be offset. You would be right is the life would have taken over the universe, but as far as we know it confined to small pockets, on the scale of the universe.[[User:Order|Order]] 07:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well then, tell me this: if increased energy alone were sufficient to reduce entropy in another part of the universe, then why couldn't a [[tornado]] rip through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747? And that's no joke. See Perloff, James, ''Tornado in a Junkyard: the Relentless Myth of Darwinism'', Refuge Books, 1999. ISBN 0966816005.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well then, tell me this: if increased energy alone were sufficient to reduce entropy in another part of the universe, then why couldn't a [[tornado]] rip through a junkyard and assemble a Boeing 747? And that's no joke. See Perloff, James, ''Tornado in a Junkyard: the Relentless Myth of Darwinism'', Refuge Books, 1999. ISBN 0966816005.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]^{[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]} 09:59, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: This is the good old creationist argument from improbability. Which, confuses random walks again with evolution. But is shows that increased energy alone is not sufficient. But the amounts of energy consumed by life to sustain itself is sufficient to disprove the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: This is the good old creationist argument from improbability. Which, confuses random walks again with evolution. And also claims that science beliefs that life came about in an event similar to your tornado. Which it doesn't.  To give your example somecredit, is shows that increased energy alone is not sufficient. But the amounts of energy consumed by life to sustain itself is sufficient to disprove the claim that the second law of thermodynamics is violated. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

---

---

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.

::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.