Originally posted by Hortlund
1. Evolution has never been observed.
2. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
3. There are no transitional fossils
1) It is important to understand the difference between micro events and macro evolution.
This is the fist hurdle for the evolutionists to overcome. And apparently it is a difficult one. For example, Samm's talk about how every living thing is a mutant or how every living creature has mutated characteristics would be examples of micro events. Gatsos example on the human jawbone would be another example.
A micro event is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code.
A macro event on the other hand is the emergence of entirely new and more advanced features through innumerable completely new genetically defined traits.
Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.
Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to call this phenomenon “micro-evolution,” the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for “macro-evolution”); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.
It is, simply stated, wrong to assume that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content.
That is macro evolution, and that has never been observed.
Why is it "simply stated, wrong" to assume that successive sets of micro-evolution can lead to macro-evolution over a long time period? What evidence have you found to the contrary? On a related note - it is interesting that some species can produce offspring with a totally species, whilst most cannot - donkeys and horses, lions and tigers can but sheep & cows can't [Neither can sheep & FDBs - but that's never stopped them from trying]. Evolution and in particular the idea that "micro-evolution" can lead to "macro-evolution" (or speciesation) would seem to explain this very neatly. What would your explanation be I wonder?
Tierra is a computer sim that follows basic genetic laws (thus by your definition all based on "micro-evolution"). It exhibits patterns of macro-evolution and punctuated equilibrium. Which is quite interesting.
http://www.isd.atr.co.jp/~ray/pubs/tierra/node23.html Current evolution thinking is that there is no difference "micro" & "macro" evolution - it's merely a question of differing results.
Evolution has also been observed working it's wonders on programmable microchips too - will find the reference later.
2) In thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.
Or in other words:
All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
I realise you're a legal guy and not a scientist and therefore used to the idea of laws being able to be broken - so just in case: "natural" laws (such as the second law of thermodynamics is pupported to be) by definition can not be broken. You then say that evolution violates this law, which is fair enough so far. However you state the as reason being that it requires "that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements". Well that applies to all life forms regardless of how they got there - so by your reasoning, all babies violate the second law. It would also apply to complex molecules - like water. Does everything we know and see around us violate the second law? Is it all because of a divine plan? So what is going on? Well basically your definition of entropy sucks: Entropy measures -- with a ratio -- the tendency of ENERGY to spread out, to diffuse, to become less concentrated in one physical location or one energetic state. It does not mean that "All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves". That is a huge jump, and in the wrong direction. It's really as foggy as your arguing against evolution on the grounds that the giraffe neck argument is dodgy (which is in fact Lamarck's theory, not Darwin's - and was rejected as feasible once genetics had made it clear that heredity didn't work like that).
