Study: Starch Digestion Adaptation in Dogs

[Red.Apricot]

Originally Posted by Pops2

No actually the theory is not comfortably established within the second law of thermodynamics. According to the second law, a subsystem within a system can only experience negative entropy (movement from chaos to order or order to greater order) by the ENTROPY of ANOTHER SUBSYSTEM. Applied to evolution, one species (subsystem) can only evolve (negative entropy) by feeding off the devolution (entropy) of another species (subsystem). Evolution theory says that negative entropy in one subsystem causes negative entropy in another. That is absolutely contrary to the second law.
According to the theory a portion of a foundation species changes its DNA in response to external factors and becomes a new species. Medical science has shown unequivocally that adding or taking away a chromosome to/from a normal DNA sequence almost universally results in defects that are survival disadvantages.
That's something that stayed in my brain from an article about ten years ago. Current searches showed ranges from 98.8 to 99.07 %.

Except that organisms aren't part of a closed sub-system. There is a constant influx of energy from the sun.

Most evolution doesn't involve the addition or removal of a chromosome wholesale. It is the cumulative affect of much smaller genetic changes that result in speciation.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Shai

Just for fun.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact.

Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry.

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact.

That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists.

no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality.

First let me make clear, I am not trying to convert anyone away from their belief in evolution. Now two points on the references you used.

First there is the repeated admission that they have PEERS who disagree that evolution is a fact.
Second they use personal attacks on nonbelievers (kind of like religious zealots) to strengthen their position. If their position is so solid why do they need to attack the people themselves? It's actually a common tactic on political fronts when ones position doesn't hold water. You know, if you dont support banning guns you want to kill children nonsense. The very presence of such an attack indicates a lack of confidence in their position.

There are as many serious defects in evolution as the theory stands as there is with the young earth religious doctrine. I don't begrudge you you're conviction. Why do begrudge me my doubt?

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Red.Apricot

Except that organisms aren't part of a closed sub-system. There is a constant influx of energy from the sun.

Most evolution doesn't involve the addition or removal of a chromosome wholesale. It is the cumulative affect of much smaller genetic changes that result in speciation.

Except that organism ARE subsystems within subsystems within subsystems.
If horses, donkeys, & zebras are all descended from a common ancestor (Eohippus) as is claimed by many evolutionary biologists, then by default you must accept the wholesale addition or removal of chromosomes. Zebras 32, 44, or 46 depending on species. Donkeys 62. Horses 64. So if they all came from Eohippus, then there must be loss, gain or both of chromosomes. And we've already covered what medical research has PROVEN about that. So yes I have DOUBTS about evolution as it stands now. So I ask you too, if I don't begrudge you your conviction, WHY do you begrudge me my doubt?

[Red.Apricot]

Originally Posted by Pops2

Except that organism ARE subsystems within subsystems within subsystems.
If horses, donkeys, & zebras are all descended from a common ancestor (Eohippus) as is claimed by many evolutionary biologists, then by default you must accept the wholesale addition or removal of chromosomes. Zebras 32, 44, or 46 depending on species. Donkeys 62. Horses 64. So if they all came from Eohippus, then there must be loss, gain or both of chromosomes. And we've already covered what medical research has PROVEN about that. So yes I have DOUBTS about evolution as it stands now. So I ask you too, if I don't begrudge you your conviction, WHY do you begrudge me my doubt?

I'm not sure why each level of a system would have to exist in a constant state of increasing entropy? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Except that to make a donkey, you don't just take two chromosomes off a horse. :] That's just not how the process works.

I don't begrudge your doubt--I wonder where I said that? So many of your posts on other subjects are well reasoned and intelligent, so I was wondering what your thoughts on this subject were. You brought it up. :] The things you have doubts about, though, seem like such basic misunderstandings of biology, that's all.

[Pops2]

Originally Posted by Red.Apricot

I'm not sure why each level of a system would have to exist in a constant state of increasing entropy? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Except that to make a donkey, you don't just take two chromosomes off a horse. :] That's just not how the process works.

I don't begrudge your doubt--I wonder where I said that? So many of your posts on other subjects are well reasoned and intelligent, so I was wondering what your thoughts on this subject were. You brought it up. :] The things you have doubts about, though, seem like such basic misunderstandings of biology, that's all.

The second law states that entropy is the natural order. Negative entropy requires on outside influence in the form of another subsystems entropy. For example human negative entropy is fed by the entropy of other subsystems (like delicious cows & broccoli). It only sounds crazy until you realize biology is an extension of physics.
Or maybe you add chromosomes to a donkey to make a horse. seriously, it's not just adding or taking it's also the reorganizing. If external pressures really had such a dramatic effect on genes, would we still have so many genetic diseases?

[Dekka]

Originally Posted by Pops2

First let me make clear, I am not trying to convert anyone away from their belief in evolution. Now two points on the references you used.

First there is the repeated admission that they have PEERS who disagree that evolution is a fact.
Second they use personal attacks on nonbelievers (kind of like religious zealots) to strengthen their position. If their position is so solid why do they need to attack the people themselves? It's actually a common tactic on political fronts when ones position doesn't hold water. You know, if you dont support banning guns you want to kill children nonsense. The very presence of such an attack indicates a lack of confidence in their position.

There are as many serious defects in evolution as the theory stands as there is with the young earth religious doctrine. I don't begrudge you you're conviction. Why do begrudge me my doubt?

The main issue I have with evolution nay sayers is that it make pretty much all of what we know of modern biology meaningless (if evolution is not correct) Pretty much everything in genetics does not hang together, if organisms weren't in a state of change over time and decended from previous species.