Science vs. Creationism

[PearlWatson]

That's looks like a page from the picture book story explaining how the bear fell into the ocean and became a whale.

I guess we'll have to take your word for it that one creature birthed the next since fossils don't reveal parent-child relationships.

 

[carolinajazz]

No, the precision is an effect of gravity, and collision still happen regularly.

...."collisions" of a disruptive nature DO NOT happen at all! If they did, the Universe and life on this planet would have ended a long time ago!

From personal experience, you likely know that all things tend toward disorder. As any homeowner has observed, when left to themselves, things tend to break down or disintegrate. Scientists refer to this tendency as “the second law of thermodynamics.” We can see this law at work daily. If left alone, a new automobile or bicycle will become scrap. Abandon a building and it will become a ruin. What about the universe? The law applies there too. So you might think that the order throughout the universe should give way to complete disorder.

However, this does not seem to be happening to the universe, as Professor of Mathematics Roger Penrose discovered when he studied the state of disorderliness (or, entropy) of the observable universe. A logical way to interpret such findings is to conclude that the universe started off in an ordered state and is still highly organized. Astrophysicist Alan Lightman noted that scientists “find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition.”

He added that “any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem”—why the universe has not become chaotic.

 

[MVP]

How do you go from a non-vertebrate to a vertebrate by a gradual accidental process? I want the whole bedtime story. I don't want you to start in the middle with a fish who conveniently is a vertebrate to begin with.

You have short memory. We already discussed that in other thread. Plenty of creatures explaining that even in today's world, for example lancelets.
You evolution deniers just need to open your eyes and look around - it is so obvious! I suggest you watch BBC series about planet EARTH. Great educational videos.

 

[Zulu]

I'm not sure why you posted this picture, but this brings up a huge grand canyon like hole in your story.

Okay we have a variety of skull sizes and shapes. Woopdeedoo!

The more important question is how the hell did a non-skulled creature accidentally and gradually mutate it's way to a skull with all the right attributes...a jaw with teeth, holes for ears, 2 eye sockets, a nose...not to mention how this just happened to have a simultaneous evolution of the brain, the backbone, the nervous system, and all the attributes a creature needs to have a use for a skull in the first place.

How do you go from a non-vertebrate to a vertebrate by a gradual accidental process? I want the whole bedtime story. I don't want you to start in the middle with a fish who conveniently is a vertebrate to begin with.

Calcium storage.... The first non vertebrates stored calcium.... The collection of calcium formed some pseudo-skeleton which gave that individual an environmental advantage...

This takes time lots of time.... Just like if you only moved one centimeter a year in one direction.... After a few years it looks like no change has taken place... But if you kept moving that one centimeter each year after a million years you'd be a thousands of kilometers away!!!!

 

[Zulu]

What context would change that you admitted this?:

You conveniently left out the part of my statement where I gave an example of an organism where we see gradual evolution of millions of years (trilobites)!!!

 

[Zulu]

@pearl...

We have example in life today... Of single cell organisms that will come together for advantageous purposes!!!!

The answers are there.... Just look into them.... You don't have to fear evolution!!

Evolution doesn't kill you Deity it shows his hand!!!

Many (not saying this is you) don't take the time and learn about the theory of evolution and why science says that this looks like how the diversity of life is this way... This isn't some elitist trick to denounce God.... Darwin study theology for crying out loud!!!

I tell this to all my students when I go over evolution.... Sit back and hear what scientist have found and are purposing.... Then make your decision on what you believe!!!

Don't make claims until you've heard both sides !!!

 

[The Midnight]

@pearl...

We have example in life today... Of single cell organisms that will come together for advantageous purposes!!!!

The answers are there.... Just look into them.... You don't have to fear evolution!!

Evolution doesn't kill you Deity it shows his hand!!!

Many (not saying this is you) don't take the time and learn about the theory of evolution and why science says that this looks like how the diversity of life is this way... This isn't some elitist trick to denounce God.... Darwin study theology for crying out loud!!!

I tell this to all my students when I go over evolution.... Sit back and hear what scientist have found and are purposing.... Then make your decision on what you believe!!!

Don't make claims until you've heard both sides !!!

I wanna meet you bro, but I fear I'll get a brain-freeze listening to you talk!!!!


!!!!


Knowhatimean!!!!

 

[One Brow]

Isn't disorder more probable, with no other outside influence, than order?

The universe is highly disordered.

 

[Bawse Dawg]

Who the **** still doesn't believe in evolution?

 

[One Brow]

How do you go from a non-vertebrate to a vertebrate by a gradual accidental process? I want the whole bedtime story. I don't want you to start in the middle with a fish who conveniently is a vertebrate to begin with.

Part of the problem is that there are so many different paths for this to take, it's hard to say what the actual path was. This path would go back to the first bilaterans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria

Also, you keep using "chance", and leavig out "necessity". It's a gradual, accidental, selective process. Human breeders can increase the average size of a breed of dog by selectively choosing the largest animals to breed. In natural selection, the choosing is done by having better breeding determined by being better adapted to an environment.

 

[One Brow]

I guess we'll have to take your word for it that one creature birthed the next since fossils don't reveal parent-child relationships.

The diagram goes out of its way to say we don't think one creature birthed the next.

 

[One Brow]

...."collisions" of a disruptive nature DO NOT happen at all! If they did, the Universe and life on this planet would have ended a long time ago!

We have had five major extinctions on this planet, where almost all the life died out. One came because fo a meteor crash.

 

[Scat]

I think Colton may have referenced this earlier. Don't know if he posted a link or not. If so, oh well. Here it is again. An astrophysicist answering questions related to creationism vs. science.

https://medium.com/p/8712e42fbb0d

 

[colton]

I think Colton may have referenced this earlier. Don't know if he posted a link or not. If so, oh well. Here it is again. An astrophysicist answering questions related to creationism vs. science.

https://medium.com/p/8712e42fbb0d

No, I haven't seen that before. But they look like good responses, and #3 is very similar to what I did say earlier in the thread.

 

[colton]

No, I haven't seen that before. But they look like good responses, and #3 is very similar to what I did say earlier in the thread.

I just finished reading through it, and I also liked his explanation of what a scientific theory is, found here:
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/12/27/ask-ethan-17-the-burden-of-proof/

Highly recommended.

 

[LogGrad98]

The universe is highly disordered.

Is DNA more or less ordered than the general disorder of the universe?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Is DNA more or less ordered than the general disorder of the universe?

By DNA, are you referring to DNA as its biochemical structure? Or rather, the science of genomics?

Because if we pooled every super-computer and ran it until the end of time, we still would not be able to completely and precisely sequence the entire genome of a single human-being, due to the hyper-randomness, unexpected-repetitivity, and ambiguity of genomics & epigenomics.


Most human genetic sequencing has been exon-centered (which constitute around ~1-2% of our DNA) while the rest of DNA is scrapped as "junk DNA", due to a combination of us either not devising ways to get them to be transcribed in the lab, or the fact that DNA does not need to be transcribed into an mRNA or protein molecule in order to be biochemically active. We can only sequence DNA (via shotgun-sequencing) via 500 base-pair reads at a time, despite the fact that some DNA strands can be tandem-repeats over tens-of-thousands of base pairs. I'm sure you could comprehend the mathematical nightmare that this would entail, as the computers would need to handle n^x calculations just to entertain every possibility of every read used to sequence the single genome.

Consequently, we tend to identify only 2% of the DNA, and only the ones that are short, and non-repetitive enough (while undertaking massive mathematical assumptions) due to the complexity of an organism's genome.


The paper mentioned in this article appraised 80% of human DNA as biochemically active, and it was published in Nature: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html.




So to answer your question: perhaps it is ordered quite definitely, however we are no-where near understand Genomics completely, much like we are no where near using mathematics to properly-modelling the disorder of the universe.

 

[LogGrad98]

By DNA, are you referring to DNA as its biochemical structure? Or rather, the science of genomics?

Because if we pooled every super-computer and ran it until the ned of time, we still would not be able to completely and precisely sequence the entire genome of a human-being, due to the hyper-randomness, unexpected-repetitivity, and ambiguity of genomics & epigenomics.


Most human genetic sequencing has been exon-centered (which constitute around ~1-2% of our DNA) while the rest of DNA is scrapped as "junk DNA", due to a combination of us either not devising ways to get them to be transcribed in the lab, or the fact that DNA does not need to be transcribed into an mRNA or protein molecule in order to be biochemically active.


The paper mentioned in this article appraised 80% of human DNA as biochemically active, and it was published in Nature: https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/junk_no_more_en_1064001.html

So your argument is that DNA is just random crap that happens to make an intelligent human being?

 

[Deleted member 848]

So your argument is that DNA is just random crap that happens to make an intelligent human being?

I added more to my post.


I'm surprised that's what you took from it. All I'm saying, is that DNA is at a point of being understood mathematically tantamount to that of the (potentially expanding) universe.

What point are you trying to make with your inquiry comparing the universe to DNA?

 

[LogGrad98]

Just pointing out that without outside influence a natural system tends toward disorder, not toward order, yet DNA and evolution certainly seem more ordered than generally expected. So what is the outside influence?