Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

The "law of degeneration"? Let me guess, that's some wacky concept invented by your creation ministries, right?

 

[Hollie]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

The "law of not absorbing too much energy so it doesn't damage the plant" takes care of that.

 

[orogenicman]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since biological systems are not isolated due to the continuous input of energy, they do not violate the 2nd law, which pertains ONLY to isolated systems.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes.

Wrong. Would you agree that humans are more complex that most single celled organisms? If you do, then explain why Amoeba dubia has a genome that is 200 times larger than that of humans, or salamanders and lilies, which contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans. .

Complexity does not depend on the amount of genes present in the organism. It depends on the amount of non-coding DNA present, that is, DNA that does not code for proteins. The thousandfold greater size of the human genome compared to that of E. coli is not due solely to a larger number of human genes. The human genome is thought to contain approximately 100,000 genes—only about 25 times more than E. coli has. Much of the complexity of eukaryotic genomes thus results from the abundance of several different types of noncoding sequences, which constitute most of the DNA of higher eukaryotic cells.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

 

[orogenicman]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

Blue-green algae are photosynthetic, and yet they don't have leaves. Next.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since biological systems are not isolated due to the continuous input of energy, they do not violate the 2nd law, which pertains ONLY to isolated systems.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes.

Wrong. Would you agree that humans are more complex that most single celled organisms? If you do, then explain why Amoeba dubia has a genome that is 200 times larger than that of humans, or salamanders and lilies, which contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans. .

Complexity does not depend on the amount of genes present in the organism. It depends on the amount of non-coding DNA present, that is, DNA that does not code for proteins. The thousandfold greater size of the human genome compared to that of E. coli is not due solely to a larger number of human genes. The human genome is thought to contain approximately 100,000 genes—only about 25 times more than E. coli has. Much of the complexity of eukaryotic genomes thus results from the abundance of several different types of noncoding sequences, which constitute most of the DNA of higher eukaryotic cells.

That is not what I am saying. Just because one has more genetic information does not make it more complex. To make a change to a Trait or function it would require new genetic information stored in the genome and passed on to offspring.

It was the new genetic information that would cause a change that would make an organism more complex.

Humans walk differently,have morals,more intelligent, that is just a few of the traits that makes a human more complex than other primates.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.

Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

Blue-green algae are photosynthetic, and yet they don't have leaves. Next.

However the organism gathers that energy to maintain complexity. Next.

 

[Hollie]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

So, algae has a "soul".

 

[Bumberclyde]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

Says who? Where?

 

[Hollie]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.

Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.

Funny that the designers designed multiple processes that are so prone to error.

Why are the designers such incompetent designers?

 

[orogenicman]

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since biological systems are not isolated due to the continuous input of energy, they do not violate the 2nd law, which pertains ONLY to isolated systems.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes.

Wrong. Would you agree that humans are more complex that most single celled organisms? If you do, then explain why Amoeba dubia has a genome that is 200 times larger than that of humans, or salamanders and lilies, which contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans. .

Complexity does not depend on the amount of genes present in the organism. It depends on the amount of non-coding DNA present, that is, DNA that does not code for proteins. The thousandfold greater size of the human genome compared to that of E. coli is not due solely to a larger number of human genes. The human genome is thought to contain approximately 100,000 genes—only about 25 times more than E. coli has. Much of the complexity of eukaryotic genomes thus results from the abundance of several different types of noncoding sequences, which constitute most of the DNA of higher eukaryotic cells.

That is not what I am saying.

That is exactly what you were saying. Don't you even read your posts?

Just because one has more genetic information does not make it more complex. To make a change to a Trait or function it would require new genetic information stored in the genome and passed on to offspring.

Not true at all. Many "new traits" simply come from already existing genes that are turned off or turned on, depending on the trait. For instance, if you want humans with tails, simply turn on the genes that already exists in our genome for tails.

It was the new genetic information that would cause a change that would make an organism more complex.

Wrong. See above.

Humans walk differently,have morals,more intelligent, that is just a few of the traits that makes a human more complex than other primates.

I don't know about that. You don't see chimpanzees destroying the planet, do you?

You underestimate the complexity of other primates, both anatomically, and socially/intellectually.

And yet, we share many traits with our other primate cousins. For instance, traits we share with all other primates:

1) Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)

2) Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears

3) Color vision

4) Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)

5) Grasping fingers aid in power grip

6) Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits

7) Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones

8) Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars

9) Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex

10) Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire

11) Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes

12) Prolongation of postnatal life periods

13) Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)

14) Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest

15) Complicated social organization

Just 4% of our genome separate us from Bonobos.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

So, algae has a "soul".

No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Every living organism over all is a soul.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

Says who? Where?

The bible, I posted it in a post to hollie.

 

[orogenicman]

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

So, algae has a "soul".

No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Every living organism over all is a soul.

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a science book. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.

Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.

Funny that the designers designed multiple processes that are so prone to error.

Why are the designers such incompetent designers?

They only produce errors in this decaying world.

 

[orogenicman]

Through photosynthesis plants leaves capture enough energy from the sun to remain complex, if it absorbed to much energy it would damage the plant.

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

He created plants for food I...

Really? I challenge you to eat some Jimson weed seeds. Let me know when you do so I can call in the guys with white coats.

By the way, almost nothing we eat today occurs in the wild. We have created our own food through thousands of years of artificial selection.

 

[Hollie]

How is this a puzzler ? the designer chose the method of reproduction for all groups of organisms.

Funny that a unguided and random process would produce such mechanisms of reproduction.

Funny that the designers designed multiple processes that are so prone to error.

Why are the designers such incompetent designers?

They only produce errors in this decaying world.

It's actually comically tragic to see you attempting to explain away your earlier gaffes with stuttering, mumbling excuses.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Since biological systems are not isolated due to the continuous input of energy, they do not violate the 2nd law, which pertains ONLY to isolated systems.



Wrong. Would you agree that humans are more complex that most single celled organisms? If you do, then explain why Amoeba dubia has a genome that is 200 times larger than that of humans, or salamanders and lilies, which contain more than ten times the amount of DNA that is in the human genome, yet these organisms are clearly not ten times more complex than humans. .

Complexity does not depend on the amount of genes present in the organism. It depends on the amount of non-coding DNA present, that is, DNA that does not code for proteins. The thousandfold greater size of the human genome compared to that of E. coli is not due solely to a larger number of human genes. The human genome is thought to contain approximately 100,000 genes—only about 25 times more than E. coli has. Much of the complexity of eukaryotic genomes thus results from the abundance of several different types of noncoding sequences, which constitute most of the DNA of higher eukaryotic cells.

That is not what I am saying.

That is exactly what you were saying. Don't you even read your posts?



Not true at all. Many "new traits" simply come from already existing genes that are turned off or turned on, depending on the trait. For instance, if you want humans with tails, simply turn on the genes that already exists in our genome for tails.

It was the new genetic information that would cause a change that would make an organism more complex.

Wrong. See above.

Humans walk differently,have morals,more intelligent, that is just a few of the traits that makes a human more complex than other primates.

I don't know about that. You don't see chimpanzees destroying the planet, do you?

You underestimate the complexity of other primates, both anatomically, and socially/intellectually.

And yet, we share many traits with our other primate cousins. For instance, traits we share with all other primates:

1) Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)

2) Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears

3) Color vision

4) Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)

5) Grasping fingers aid in power grip

6) Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits

7) Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones

8) Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars

9) Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex

10) Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire

11) Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes

12) Prolongation of postnatal life periods

13) Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)

14) Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest

15) Complicated social organization

Just 4% of our genome separate us from Bonobos.

That is not what I said don't put words in my mouth.

We can agree that new traits or functions come from already existing genetic information. But your side is claiming that these changes come from mutations.

Humans do commit crimes but that is a choice would you rather have a world designed and ran by chimps ?

Similarity does not prove evolution that is merely circular reasoning and it's not science.