IControlThePast said:
Evolution: "A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." So how since the first organism didn't come from a pre-existing type of organism, it's not Evolution. My curriculums were, respectively, state and nationally mandated.
Perhaps you would consider Stephan Jay Gould to be more of an authority on the subject than I...
"Evolution is one of the half dozen 'great ideas' developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of usthe 'roots' phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder."[ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 262. ]
I've already proven how an organism could evolve into a man
.
You've shown how genetic information can be carried, but not how new information could have arisen.
If space contains no matter, it has no energy. The only two things varying in that formula are mass and energy. Meters and time are fixed, not variables here. There isn't a relationship shown here between something's "space" and Energy or "space" and Mass. C is just a constant to create proportional relationship between Energy and Mass. The unit you're trying to use to measure the amount of space in the Universe is only in two dimensions too, while the Universe has at least three spatial ones, or do you still believe the world is flat too
:tng:
.
Silly! Of course the world isn't flat. That can be observed and tested.
Energy and mass exist in space. Space is implicit in the formula. But, at any rate, I was not using the meter or
any unit of distance in my example. I was dealing only with energy and mass. The laws of thermodynamics show that the amount of energy available for work is decreasing, therefore, the universe cannot have existed forever or else it would have reached heat death. Nothing to do with the theoretical spatial expansion of the universe.
Edit: Actually I thought the Meter was one dimensional, like a line, but you say it's two?
I was thinking of linear
direction. But you are correct. Direction is not a technical dimension.
Macroevolution is a statement drawn completely from the tested axioms of microevolution. You can make macroev. a theorem from previous microevolution axioms, like Euclid drew the large number of theorems in Euclidean Geometry (I think around 113 or so) from his 5 axioms. This is different than creating a whole new axiom, which you need to do with the Creator for ID. You can't make that a theorem from existing axioms. This is how it violates Occams Razor.
Okay, so we both agree that
microevolution contains the
axioms. Macroevolution and Creation are both "theorems" based on these "axioms." The Creation model claims that an intelligent being created specifically complex organisms. Mutation and natural selection are functions initiated at creation to work on genetic information. The macroevolution model claims that these organisms, and the specifically complex information contained in their DNA, arose through random processes. We have all observed "something" being formed of "something." The Macroevolution model needs the extra axiom that "something" can be formed from "nothing." Therefore, macroevolution violates Occam's Razor.
Well then where exactly are you finding fault? I thought you were saying there wasn't enough raw material (bp) for variation, that even if infintely specified the early genomes could not incorporate the amount of info we have, trying to write a sentence with only two letters? There are of course mechanisms for altering genetic information once the numbers of base pairs are there, like mutation, which creates variation. Natural selection makes the genome more specific, adding the specified complexity. When a mutation occurs on "backup" gene, it introduces new information to the organisms genome without losing any functions.
Natural selection and mutation cannot add genetic information. It can only act on the genetic information
already present in the genome. There has never been an example of a mutation which
increased the genetic information.
I have a couple more quotes for you...
"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." ----Professor D.M.S. Watson, biologist and evolutionist. ("Adaptation,"
Nature, 124:233, 1929)
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."-----Richard Lewontin (Billions and Billions of Demons,
The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.)
You see, even these renowned evolutionists freely admit that their belief in macroevolution is a religious
choice. They choose to believe in materialism as opposed to special creation, and all their presumptions and interpretations are based on this religious view. Why should this view be taught
exclusively in the classroom? I think, by our collaborative effort, we have shown that a
scientific debate
can occur. Its my belief that it
should.
. 
