Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (567)	5/11/2001 12:14:08 AM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1112

I am trying to be charitable to your position, but the article you copied over is supportive of speciation. I can only assume that now we are no longer trying to defend positions, but instead are simply sharing information relating to the subject of evolution and God. Thanks for the Stephen Jay Gould snippet. Punctuated Equilibrium is just one of the many aspects or flavors of evolution that are debated by scientists. Much like the Creationist side of the debate, you will find many alternative viewpoints and we are not able to assume an either/or solution that can be wrapped up by simply "debunking" one particular story. Re: Entropy The argument I have heard most concering entropy is one used to attack the feasibility of an evolution story by citing the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In layman's terms, the law can be stated as: "For a closed system, the amount of disorder in the system will always increase with time, and never decreases. From this, it is assumed that evolution cannot have occurred. If the earth of long ago was a molten rock (lots of disorder), it could NOT have become ordered (living systems) all by itself. The flaw in this argument is that the earth is not a closed system. It is continually receiving and radiating off energy from the sun. Therefore, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply. Please do not give much credence to anybody who uses this argument. They are either grossly misinformed or are being dishonest (Duane Gish falls into this category). I prefer the arguments from the likes of Michael Behe, who advocates a biochemical version of the irreducible complexity argument. Although I still do not find it convincing, it at least has scientific basis. :)