The Real McCoy said:
But the origin of life, genetics, etc. is where evolution hits a dead end.
ignorant nonsense. Evolution doesn't even DEAL with the origin of life, it is another field of study. It also doesn't deal with electrical currents or the format of atoms, so those are also the areas where Evolution hits a dead end. Of course it does, as this is not something it concerns itself with. Your insistence that it should is again ONLY showing ignorance/deception about Evolution, nothing else.
And yes, Evolution does VERY well with genetics, so that is also false.
Classic argument presented by evolution advocates.
Oh, I can't wait. lets see how honest you are about this!
"However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says.
Again, energy flow is physics, not biology. That aside, the 2loT has been shown to be as poorly understood by creationists as is their understanding of Evolution. Lets see if you are doing any better here than the average creationist, shall we?
And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down).
Ah, so plants don't grow by photosynthesis, allowing for more organisms and therefore an increased pool of mutations?
If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.
Now, THAT was an interesting fallacy and outright misrepresentation. One based on focusing on only one thing, ignoring all other facts. That is as dishonest as anything else the creationists dish out. Biologists, like you as well, value self-preservation. To claim that we want an increased mutation rate at the expense of our own lives, that is asinine.
So your "if it was true" misrepresentation is a false analogy, it is dishonest.
Again, instead of making wild, unsubstantiated and false claims, when are you actually going to learn about this stuff so you can post intelligently on relevant and factual stuff instead of these false inventions of yours?
No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
However, this requires you to completely ignore photosynthesis, the biggest source of energy on Earth. If you have to ignore the vast majority of the biosphere in order to make your claim, don't you think there is something wrong with your claim?
Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ...
BUT NOT IN THE SAME WAY. MORE misrepresentation, MORE outright falsehood. Are you done yet, or are you further going to show how ignorant and outright dishonest the creationist arguments always are?
there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.
Again, nobody are claiming this, but we certainly note that in such systems local entropy decrease happens, as is the case with photosynthesis in plants, which is what drives nearly all of the earth's biosphere (ignoring thermal vents).
It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]"
And it is important not to make misrepresentations about this as well.
And I couldn't help but noting that your source was NOT a Biological Sciences Source. Dr. Ross is not listed on the Harvard Faculty list, and the only John Ross that shows up in the physical sciences is a chemist at Stanford, which makes him NOT a biologist, NOT an 'evolutionists" which makes your claim ANOTHER falsehood.
But we'll wait and see. I sent him an e-mail and hopefully he will write a brief note back
Yes, a creationist site that misuse out of context and misrepresent scientific data and information. In this case by what looks like "quote mining," the deliberate reproduction of partial statements out of context to present a view opposite of what was stated. Do you think Dr. Ross agrees with your dishonest misrepresentation and misuse of his statement? Well, we'll see when he writes back.
These hundreds of "transitional" fossils are highly questionable far from concrete evidence.
Why? Why are they highly questionable? because you say so?
"trueorigin" has been caught in outright lies and misrepresentations before as well, so it really isn't a good source. Non-scientific, political sites are not evidence for or against science.
"It’s important to understand up front that—in spite of such a clearly defined definition—there is much disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens qualify as “transitional” and which supposed “transitional forms” fit into which lineages, and where.
But not of their existence. Another dishonest quote mining, IOW.
"A very serious indictment of evolutionary “spokespersons” (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a “united front” they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the “spokespersons” describe as firmly established and beyond dispute."
A "because I say so" claim from the trueorigin site, a known liar. Frankly I couldn't care less.
]"In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework."
A lie. Fossils are not interpreted per the assumption that Evolution occurred. Rather, it is found that evolution occurred based on what the Fossil data showed. So that was another misrepresentation. yes, your sources obviously are not held to any standards of factuality, which is one of the big differences from not using Scientific Sources.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where this genetic structure originated.
Irrelevant. All we need to know for studying Evolution is how it changes, namely biology. Yes, I know that you want to misrepresent this and claim that we can't study changes without proving origin of DNA and the first cell, which is a matter for chemistry, not biology.. And thus that remains a falsehood and a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting Evolution. A flagrant dishonesty.
