quote:Original post by Imperil
BUT please note that there hasn''t been a SINGLE case of a mutation adding to the survivability of a species. And there are laws of chemistry that also go along with this.
Both are LAWs (please read not theory but law) of thermodynamics.
First Law: No matter can be created or destroyed, only transfered (molecules distributed, etc).
Second Law: Entrophy (everything breaks down).
A) All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
B) Thus, any system that experiences even a temporary growth in order and complexity must not only be "open" to the sun''s energy but must also contain a "program" to direct the growth and a "mechanism" to energize the growth.
Point A clearly shows that a mutation will never benefit a species, and point B clearly shows that a species would HAVE to be programmed (upon creation of the species) in order to change.
Please remember that thermodynamics is a LAW and evolution is a theory. So when someone that actually still believes in Evolution tries to tell you that a certain species "mutated and lost one of its bones in order for it to move faster", please note this actually goes AGAINST Darwin''s theory and proves yet again the LAW of thermodynamics as there was a breakdown, and also that it MUST have been programmed, it didn''t just happen =]
You clearly stated the laws of thermodynamics. The first law, what does that have to do with mutation/evolution? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, true, I agree, makes sense. But how will that stop my children being a bit different from me? I don''t see the relationship of that law and having offspring with small variances from the parent. That''s what mutations are. Not comic-book style I wake up tomorrow and I am a member of the Fantastic Four. Small variations, tiny, miniscule, un-noticeable from generation to generation, with possible large mutations on occasion. The large mutations occur mostly through in-breeding, a natural occurence in a dying species. Less members, more in-breeding, more and greater mutation as a last ditch effort for survival.
And point A of law 2 clearly shows nothing. Construction of medical tools, houses, bird''s nests all show an INCREASE in order and descrease of disorder, and an animal''s ability to build a house, a nest, a dam, etc does benefit the survival.
And as for B of law 2, I can agree with that, but what I say does not violate that. Seems like the beginnings of a better definition of what life is.
Also, please have the open-mindedness to consider the possibility that both sides of the spectrum are correct. Creation or evolution? Why not both? Main problem I have with creationism, is who created God? Who created the guy who created god? Who created the guy who created the guy who created god? Just simply being their violates the precious first law you use to support your claims. =)
