Bob, your quotes are stuff and nonsense. If we still are so unaware of the complexities and mysteries of the universe tell me how we could calculate the probability of it occurring at random. I am not a cosmologist, and I think it would be inappropriate for met to comment further. Unlike creationists, I will stick to my area of competence. So let's move on to areas of biochemistry, genetics and evolution.
Your comments regarding the movement from order to disorder is true if you are dealing with a closed system . But entropy does not predict increasing chaos when energy from an outside source impinges on an open system. Nor does it deal with each component of an open system. Get it? This is a common error in argument made by people who do not understand thermodynamics. If you doubt that it is easy to go from chaos to order in an open system try the child's project of growing sugar crystals from sugar water. Here you go from a state of relative disorder (high entropy) to one of relative order (lower entropy). That didn't require any divine intervention, did it? What it required was the gradual removal of water through evaporation.
Geneticists were experimenting to create new organisms for over a hundred years, and you know what? -- they have met with astounding success! Don't believe me, ask wheat farmers and corn farmers what seed they use and why they use that seed. And then call the companies that produce those seeds and ask how they were generated.
Now where in the world did you get this from:
I also add that the Russians for years forced mutations in an effort to see an evolutionary jump. They never succeeded. 5% of successful mutations were benign and 95% killed the subject of the experiment! No mutation produced a better organism!
It is so replete with misinformation and so redolent of a religious diatribe that it seems almost pointless to respond, but here is a brief and highly simplified one.
Under the Soviet system, virtually no meaningful genetics were done because it violated their misguided political philosophy. They stressed the "nurture" part of the nature or nurture philosophy. So whatever you are referring to didn't occur in the Soviet Union.
The chance that a mutation (whether naturally occurring or induced) will result in an increased coefficient of selection is minuscule. Perhaps one in ten thousand. Now suppose you have a million breeding individuals. The expected number of individuals with an advantaged phenotype will be 100 per generation. Let this kind of process go on and you get a gradual shift in the gene pool. This is a very slow phenomenon, but it does happen (example, humans have gotten taller over time. Evidence: clothing, armor, skeletons etc.) The more interesting case is punctuated equilibrium, which essentially depends on isolating small groups of breeding individuals from the general population. This is what happened with much of fresh water fish speciation (cichlids is the classic example), but it has also been noted in other animals as well. That's why pioneer populations (populations at the leading edge of population shifts) tend to evolve much more rapidly than the main body.
Before you throw stones at the theory of evolution it would help if you learned it in some depth, and dealt with the first hand accounts of people working in the field rather than the second hand accounts of people who have axes to grind (political or religious). |
