JED wrote:As far as there being any biological evidence of special creation . . .
There is nothing BUT biological evidence of special creation.
Well, that could be taken as there being no evidence other than biological, but then that doesn't confirm that such evidence exists. So you still need to clarify. How about specifics instead of useless vagueness?
Genetic material is combined in such a way that the amino acid chains not only need to align at each end, but at every adjoining molecule. In the double helix, that means up, down, left, right, sideways, back and forth.
Amino acids formed randomly (or intentionally such as in Miller's experiments) are consistently "Left" AND "right" handed. That is, the ionic bonds that draw molecules together show no preference for which side of the attracting molecule they bond to. All life is made up of ONLY left handed amino acids. How were the right handed ones excluded?
Perhaps per the "lefthanded" molecule being more stable, and thus the organisms/cells having better success rate. That's just simple Natural Selection. How does that indicate "special creation"? Is all your evidence based on "Well it is to unique and improbable, so it simply couldn't have evolved"? Because that kind of argument from incredulity is not actual evidence of anything. It merely is you saying " I don't
believe it happened any other way than through creation." And belief is not exactly evidence.
The first law of thermodynamics requires that all things seek their own entropy holes and remain in stasis. Pure equilibrium. Having achieved equilibrium, no stochastic mechanisms exist to produce increased order.
In the entire system, yes. But locally, you are a violation of that Natural Law, so I am not sure what you are trying to claim here.
There is only the second law of thermodynamics that there can only exist a decrease in order; further degradation.
In a closed system. Again, if you try to apply it in all systems, then you are a violation of the 2LoT. You grew from one cell to a complex organism with variation in energy use and distribution, decreasing entropy. But you are not a closed system, exchanging energy with your surroundings, just like Earth exchanges energy with the sun and the universe. So your use of the laws of thermodynamics don't make sense. They indicate mainly that you seem somewhat uneducated about the specifics of these Natural Laws.
Additional genetic information is never gained in a DNA chain.
Really? How do you measure that? If you say that "new information" is never added, how can you measure that? Can you look at two different genetic codes and tell that one has more "information" than the other? That aside, what is the importance of your odd claim about "no new information? I have seen it many times from creationists, but they always try to tie it in with the 2LoT, which then necessitates the claim that every organism and Earth itself are closed systems. As that clearly is nonsense, the very foundation for the argument always has seen silly. So I am eagerly awaiting you explaining what "information" is, and how you measure increases and decreases, and finally, why that matters.
When mutations occur, it's always a scrambling of information already present; a leg out of place, an additional head or some other abberation of existing DNA code.
Really? The types of mutations you describe are incredibly rare. I don't see a lot of mutations leading to two heads, so I must ask you for actual evidence of that claim. As such, your claim about mutations of course is downright false.
But since I am sure you wouldn't talk about mutations without knowing what they are, can you explain which mutations would cause an "increase in information"? Would a frame shift mutation do it? Would a deletion or duplication mutation cause an increase in "information"? Is your idea of "information" simply the total number of base-pairs?
And again, why does this matter to the Scientific Theory of Evolution? As I said previously, the only time I see arguments about "information" it is per some creationist trying to misapply the 2LoT claiming that we are closed systems and that thus only entropy can exist, ignoring how we grow in the different direction, from one cell to a multi-cellular, tissue-differentiated organism.
Never does a wing form on a snake or a fin on a cat.
Why should it? Why should existing fully-formed, multi-gene structures suddenly form on another organism? There is nothing in the Scientific Theory of Evolution that states this, so why you suddenly decide that its absence is evidence against evolution is weird. Why would the "impossibility" of something that is NOT part of the SToE suddenly also become evidence against the SToE as well? Your claim simply doesn't make sense, almost as if you didn't know what Evolution is to begin with.
And that does make me wonder, because we get a lot of creationist arguments against 'evolution" based on complete ignorance of evolution to begin with, based solely on religious fervor that if it is not creationism, it must be anti-God and therefore wrong, as if moral fervor somehow would be sufficient as your evidence.
So please clarify what you mean here.
The information is not present and cannot arise stochastically. It is not only improbable, it is impossible.
So the "nylon bug" of a previous post is a figment of our imagination?
The result, of course, is that 'all things reproduce according to their kind'. Dogs beget dogs, birds beget birds and so forth.
What is a "kind"? Your examples don't make sense. Different dogs are all within the same species, whereas birds are a class with 3000-4000 species in it. So the way you use “kind” surely doesn't make sense in a biological sense. Could you please define "kind" and distinguish how unified or spread-out its application is in the taxonomy system? Do you even know what taxonomic classification is? How many species are in a kind, f.ex? That would be useful information for us to figure out what you mean with "kind."
The theory of evolution at some juncture always requires spontaneous generation to occur.
Actually, "spontaneous Generation" is a term describing a belief/hypothesis from around the early Middle Ages, where beliefs were that organisms could arise spontaneously from inanimate matter, such as mice spontaneously arising from straw. Straw was placed in a pile and later mice crawled out of the pile, so they somehow must have been made spontaneously from the pile of straw.
Such beliefs clearly are nonsense per modern scientific evidence. So your use of that term seems a bit odd. That particular idea was done and gone many centuries before Darwin formulated his hypothesis.
The pioneering work of Louis Pasteur paved the way for our canning and bottling industry today. Billions of experiments are performed each day as tuna fish, tomato soup and grape jelly are put into a controlled environment absent living DNA. The result is consistently the same, new life does not form spontaneously from non-living material. Not even from organic, previously alive material. Once the living DNA has been precipitated or disassembled by whatever means, heat, radiation, decay, new life does not form from the remains.
Yeah? And what does that have to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution? As best I can understand (Bear with me if I am wrong, but to me you simply aren't making much sense here), you are trying to talk about "Abiogenesis," the question about how life originally began. That is not part of the Scientific Theory of Evolution at all, as it doesn't concern itself with where life originated from, only with how it changes.
Your argument seems more like classical creationism which is completely ignorant of that point because it has no clue what evolution is, other than that it is not creationism, and therefore assumed to be wrong solely because of that. Creationism, of course, is in disagreement with most science, including Biology and the Scientific Theory of Evolution. But you seem to try to say that the Scientific Theory of Evolution is wrong because of some stuff that is not even part of the Scientific Theory of Evolution to begin with. Why is that? Are you a classical creationist who argues against the Scientific Theory of Evolution solely because it is not creationism, but with absolutely no personal knowledge of what the Scientific Theory of Evolution actually is to begin with? I hope that is not the case, because that would be kind of dishonest, trying to argue evidence that you don't care about anyway.
There is a specific order to life ordained by the creator of life. All things reproduce according to their kind.
Well, so you claim. You have provided no evidence for this, other than moral fervor and some weirds claims that have little or nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution to begin with. You haven't even shown us what a "kind" is. How many kinds are there, f.ex.?
Many kinds of animals have become extinct, we find their remains all the time.
Hmm, in what way are you using the word "kind" her?
While we discover new varieties of life from time to time, no new kinds of life arise from other kinds,
We don't even know yet what a "kind" is, so you need to elaborate.
or from non-living material.
But then, the Scientific Theory of Evolution makes no claim of that occurring either, so what does that matter?
The simple fact is, if someone tells you frogs become princes. It's either a fanciful fairy tale, or a delusion.
My bet is on the fairytale. But again, what does that have to do with anything? You seem to try to indicate that one existing species should somehow evolve into another existing species? That's just plain a bizarre claim.
