Both: the specificity, and generality of chemical genetic coding of an apple seed. Why is it so complex? Why would "nature" find a reason to increase complexity (especially given the 2nd law of thermodynamics) just so that one little seed can produce more apple trees?
Basically, I have no idea what you're asking here. The genetic code itself is simple, so I don't know what you mean there. The 2nd Law says nothing at all about increasing complexity in an open system, so I don't know why you're raising it. As for why "nature" would find a reason to do anything, I have no idea, since the natural forces I deal with don't have reasons for doing things. Certainly no theory of evolution in the last 150 years has proposed that DNA increased in complexity
in order to produce apple seeds. What theory are you arguing against here?
DNA is incredibly precise. Have you seen the process that creates DNA? Precision is the name of the game; one chemical off, and you don't have the proper mechanisms to create DNA - the code of life.
I repeat: DNA is pretty sloppy. It breaks all the time; copying it always produces errors. Transcribing it is pretty random, with unused DNA sometimes transcribed and faulty transcripts often produced. But I'm not sure what the point is here.
Uh huh. Like you said, it is unknown [to scientists.] So, we revert to evolution, then? [/sarcasm] Faith-based science is amusing to me, especially since many "scientists" do not recognize their own faith in most of their theories. It is the same faith they have that the roof over their heads wont collapse on them, or that they won't fall into a sink hole. Forcing hypothesis into axioms.
Well, we've established that you're easily amused. I'm more interested in seeing an argument, though.
Didn't you answer your own "recall" with the previous response you posted?
Huh?
Again, show difinitive, non-decaying proof of these mutations e.g. show that 1) the mutations existed in history up to now and, 2) the mutations are not subject to time-perturbation - that they are not subject to random influence of radioactive decay.
What is non-decaying proof? I think differences between species are the result of accumulated mutations because the differences look exactly like mutations that have accumulated, in a variety of ways. No one has offered any alternative reason why they should look like mutations, so my conclusion is that they
are the result of mutations. If you have a superior model that explains the same data, just offer it.
I have no idea what your second question means. Mutations are one-time events. Some (a small percentage) are the result of radioactive decay. How would they later be subject to radioactive decay?
You are arguing the science behind this and you haven't even taken P. Chem, or statistical thermodynamics? The "monkeys writing a Shakespearean novel" problem is a trite problem in those disciplines. The point is that given a long enough time period, anything is quantitatively possible. 4.5 billion years is a long time, no? Or, have we gotten used to U.S. currency inflation so much that 4.5 billion doesn't sound like a lot? Given that the universe is *supposedly* only three times the age of the earth, why can't you understand evolution works on *near* infinite time? In order for evolution to claim the things it claims, you need billions of years statistically. It isn't even a matter of philosophy; you need those years to statistically work.
(A) Yes, I've taken statistical thermodynamics. (B) I haven't said anything about my own understanding: I've been trying to get a clear statement from you about what you mean. If you just mean that the evolutionary history of life requires a long time, hundreds of millions of years at least, then I completely agree -- but don't see what the point is. To me, "near-infinite" means something much bigger than actually exists. If, on the other hand, you mean that evolution requires
more time than the age of the universe, then you've got to show your calculation.
It is convenient that primordial soup produces eukaryotic life (not prokaryotic life,) along with consciousness, reproductive instincts, and other abstractions, but it FAILS at producing potent mules - even though a horse and donkey mate and produce a mule. It can produce all of that complexity (conscious, etc.,) but it can't make a mule fertile... why not?
Why on earth would you expect potent mules to have been produced. And why is it "convenient"? Try formulating an actual argument here. If evolution is true, we should expect to see fertile mules because <...>.
Right now, your argument looks like this: There's a rock in my backyard. Because I live in Massachusetts, scientists tell me the rock probably came from Canada and was dropped by a glacier. How convenient! A glacier could carry a rock all the way from Canada and deposit in my yard, but couldn't carry it across the street to my neighbor's? Why not?
To this kind of argument, the only response I can think of is, "huh?"
A creationist term. Nice dig.
It's not a dig; it's a statement of fact. The only people I see use "kind" as a biological term are creationists. I don't know what a kind is supposed to be.
Is a bird and a horse the same kind? Is an elephant and hyena the same kind? Don't play dumb; you know what a "kind" is.
No, I really, truly don't know what you mean by a kind. Are you incapable of telling me?
That is why, for example above, the horse and donkey can reproduce to produce. Though, their product is not fertile (why not, evolution?) Species are but classifications "scientists" bundle creatures into.
No, species are groups of organisms that can't or won't interbreed. That's a real thing. I know why (according to evolutionary biology) species exist. I know why their boundaries are fuzzy. What I don't know is what you're trying to say.
Anyway, why is my DNA not compatible with a "cow?" Why does nature respect that - in all of its random primordial soup forged nativity?
Who or what is this "nature" you keep introducing? Your DNA is not compatible with a cow's because the proteins produced by the DNA are not compatible, and the developmental signals sent by the two sets of DNA are not compatible. The developmental process can handle a certain amount of noise, but sending wildly conflicting instructions is guaranteed to screw things up.
$100,000,000? Wow, see that is the difference between independent (somewhat blacklisted) scientists, and mainstream scientists. I only asked for $30,000,000.
First you have to show that you're worth the money. What have you produced scientifically?
Kinds? The point in the quoted paragraph is that I would show you (with $30,000,000 - you can give me at any time) why I a human cannot procreate with a "cow" (I know I said bull, I was jumping the though thinking of minotaur.) It is to show that for some ridiculous reason, nature won't let me procreate with cows to produce half human-half cow creatures. WHY NOT? What is it in nature - in the code that dictates order of kinds? You still don't understand kinds? Are you being coy, or feigning ignorance?
Nope, still don't understand what you mean by kinds. Right now it sounds like you mean "species". If so, there's already been a fair bit of work done on why closely related species can't or won't reproduce together successfully. The short answer is, "it varies". It can be something as simple as different timing for flowering plants, differeing pheromones and receptors for insects, incompatible immune systems. Usually there are many reasons, caused by incompatibilities at many points in the genome.
Why would nature make a slightly messed up animal? Are you feigning ignorance, again?
Believe me, my ignorance at your point is not feigned. I cannot see anything resembling a logical argument here.
Why would nature create a sterile animal, especially a sterile animal that is environmentally beneficial (i.e. loading and carrying)?
"Nature" created a sterile animal as a by-product of creating two species, donkeys and horses, out of a common ancestor. Their hybrid offspring, which are probably quite rare in a natural setting, have no evolutionary importance, since they're sterile, but humans happen to find them useful.
Now, please tell me what point you're trying to make here. Is this supposed to be an argument against evolution? If so, how?
That's right the only you have seen. You are not omnipresent or omniscient. And, that is what you perceive. I am asking you straight up the qualms I have with evolution. I am a physicist; enlighten me. But, don't expect me to let you go with an easy throw-away answer. I asked you questions; I didn't scoff. I started an academic argument a long time ago; accept.
Sorry, but this is not an academic argument. If you offer a clear, coherent argument, I'll attempt to address it, but you haven't even said anything clear enough to disagree with. Try this kind of argumentation in a physics paper and you'll get a rejection out of hand, if the editor even bothers to reply. Have you ever written a physics paper?
