Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Law, Indeed

Mr. Watson, I presume.

"Let us not beat about the bush — the common assumption that evolution through natural selection is a 'theory' in the same way as string theory is a theory is wrong. Evolution is a law (with several components) that is as well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of gravity, the laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed only by those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on hold and believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached only by revelation. "

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are you putting out bait to catch a troll?

Craig Lowery said...

Yup. He's fishing, but the statement is too void of factual or intelligent content to merit comment. The moron who uttered it should be given due credit. Phooey... this is just too much. What about entropy? Show me one thing in this world that is getting better, and not winding down, wearing out, and becoming LESS organized. Show me one organism capable of generating new and better genetic information and passing it on to its offspring. Mutations are generally destructive, involve the loss of genetic information and result in a weakness that disappears without being passed on. Mutations are "devolution" by definition. Where are the millions of "missing links" that should be evident in the fossil record? Living things either reproduce after their OWN kind, or they degenerate. If you're looking for facts, DEVOLUTION might be one. I've seen some specimens that appear to be on their way to devolving into chimpanzees. There are plenty of folks around who look like Neanderthals. How come they didn't "evolve" with the rest of us? Take their skull and put it in a museum and it'll pass for the "missing link". This guy speaks of laws and mathematics, but obviously doesn't know anything of probability theory. Anything less than a chance of one in 10 to the fiftieth power is considered by real mathematicians to be mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. The chance of one peptide chain (not even a protein molecule!) forming by random chance is less than one in ten to the 1300 th power. There aren't that many electrons in ten universes the size of the known universe. Not only that, but it would be instantly dissolved before it could "evolve" or reproduce, even if it were capable of reproduction, which it wouldn't be. Furthermore, it would be arranged in a right-hand spiral, and all living things have the opposite rotation. And you want me to believe that eyesight, which requires thousands of instantaneous electrochemical reactions in perfect sequence, evolved by accident? Why? No stage in the process has any value in itself apart from the completed whole. What have you been smoking? Evolution is a law? Gimmeabreak. It is contrary to God's Law. It is fiction. Isolated populations that are used as examples of having "evolved" have simply changed due to a loss of genetic information. Isolation impoverishes the gene pool. The changes disappear when they are no longer isolated. Natural selection can improve certain characteristics in a group, or select for certain characteristics (such as dark colored moths on soot-covered trees) but it doesn't result in generation of new genetic information.

coldH2O said...

Well, so much for half the team that discovered DNA. It's "against god's law", therefore it's false. This troll is cutting & pasting loads of scientific sounding stuff & expects us to come to the conclusion that it's all true, because some god told him. Huh? He must be joined at the hip with that great christian Pat Robertson. & of course, this troll has the obligation to make fun of chimps, something the religious dopes always do when faced with reality. The only thing devolving around here is how the country just had two stolen presidentail elections in a row & goofballs like Craig Lowery feel empowered. Jeez. He's probably carried too many hods up a ladder.

Craig Lowery said...

Nice sense of humor. Oh, sorry about the chimps comment... I forgot you were related. Please give me one quote from a King James Bible that is provably false. It's been 394 years and nobody has come up with one yet.