[quote] name='Paul of Eugene OR' timestamp='1333937501' post='82980']
This question puzzles me because as I consider the theoretical operation of evolution dynamics I don't see where the entropy objection comes into play.
Here are the basic steps of evolution, according to the theory:
a) A species reproduces successfully in a given environment. (We see that happening, don't we? Must be ok so far)
b - There are limits to the environment so some potential members of the species die without leaving descendants, others don't. (We see that happening, don't we? No species keeps growing its population indefinitely, there are ALWAYS limits)[/quote]
Paul, I'm glad you defined exactly the evolution theory you believe in. On ToL, no matter which evolution theory I argued against, I was told "that's not evolution." It was like pinning a gnat to a flea.
What do you mean by "some potential"? If they die, are they not members of the species? And when they die, information in the genome can be lost. If every dog (wolves included) in the world died but two English Bulldogs (male and female) all the information in the world's dog population would be lost, nevery to be heard from again--unless God decided to write a replacement program. Information is not physical and any new
information can't come from matter because matter does not have it to give nor is it capable of writing it.
[quote]c) Members of the species will vary against others of their own kind as to how well they are able to reproduce, birthing the next generation.
(Aren't some of us smarter than others, faster than others, sexier than others, etc etc?)[/quote]
When it comes to a herd of cattle or a school of fish, why can't the luckier ones survive? If the luckier ones survive, why would the luckier be bigger or faster? Recently, studies have shown that the fish in our lakes and streams are getting smaller. And they now think it is because fishermmen are not allowed to keep fish unless they are over
a certain size. So all the fish with the big genes are being eaten while the smaller fish are left in the lake. In the 50's I was living in France. Charles DeGaule and I were the biggest guys in the country. I could stand in the back of the crowd and watch a parade over the heads of the crowd. I asked a French friend why all the runts in France. He told me that during the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon would put the bigger guys up front to scare the enemy. But the big guys became cannon fodder.
[quote]d) members of the species with better abilities to reproduce will be preferentially represented in the next and following generations.
(Kind of a tautology almost, but doesn't it make sense? Better reproducers will reproduce more?)[/quote]
All you're talking about here is that the biggest wolf will become leader of the pack and reproduce with the biggest wolf. God put this in place so that the pack would be healthy and fit. But the wolf was a wolf when God made it, and it is still a wolf today. It will never be anything other than a wolf. Information in the DNA can be lost, but no natural processes will ever produce any NEW information in the DNA.
[quote]e) Mutations come along
(Surely nobody thinks this is ruled out)
f) Mutations sometimes help and sometimes hinder reproductive fitness
(Helpful mutations have been demonstrated time and again, including the rare but demonstrated reversal of a harmful mutation)
g) Given the automatic, natural selection the bad mutations come to be represented less and less in the population and the good mutations come to be more and more represented in the population (down the line, in following generations, of course)
h) Once a new good mutation is established, the whole thing can happen again over and over.[/quote]
Some facts: Mutations occasionally
have some survival value in that they improve the organism under certain circumstances. This is true. But it is not relevant to the argument. Fact: Mutations have never, never, never been observed to add brand-new information. Sometimes mutations will cause a section of DNA to get duplicated, but this is not a creation of new
[quote]i) Given enough time, an indefinate number of mutations can become established, to the point of a great change in the organism.[/quote]
But you will not get a new organism. God said that all will produce after it's own kind. And that's exactly what we see happening in the real world. If what you see in reality does not agree with your worldview, then your worldview is faulty. The only remedy is to get a new pair of creation eye-glasses.
[quote]OK that's the theory. Perhaps some might believe this theory is bogus . . . . but that's not the point of this thread. This thread is about entropy.
Where in these steps is there anything against the laws of thermodynamics? Please specify the step and why.
Added in edit . . . guess what, I accidently found a smiley quote. What do you get when you type "b" followed by ")"? You get
Be glad to. I posted this before.
The First Law says that matter or energy can't be created or destroyed. What this actually means is that we humans can't create matter without using energy and we can't get energy without matter. We need both. There is no new energy or matter coming into existence. Why? Because God created all that exists and rested on the seventh day. What's here is here. So a simply way definition is that a rock can't create itself from nothing.
The Second Law says that the amount of energy in the universe is finite and not infinite. Industrialist during the Industrial Revolution paid scientists big bucks (or pounds and francs) to get the biggest bang for their buck and get the most energy from the least amount of burning matter. Actually what they were hoping for was a perpetual motion machine--a machine that would capture the original heat and use it again. But that darned Second Law is insurmountable. Some the energy was always lost never to be useable again. Scientist now agree that a fire will not burn forever. But it gets worse for the evolutionist. Everything is going from order to disorder. I'm about to be 77 years old, and I can attestest to this fact. I used to be able to leap tall buildings with a single bound; now I trip over curbstones.
Recall I said that if your worldview does not match what you see in reality, you need to rethink your worldview. What we see in reality is not an upward order from disorder. We see disorder from order. All "goes back to the dust of the earth" which is what God said in Genesis. Left to itself, without God's intervention, this universe will die (Times Arrow). Matter is finite. But us humans are not finite. While our physical bodies will go back to the dust of the earth, we will live eternally in the spirit. I submit that an atheist can't imagine not being. God put eternity future into our hearts.
Evolution is not possible scientifically or logically.