Someone, please help me stand up for Darwin

DOn RObers ecoman1 at airmail.net
Mon Apr 6 02:12:06 EST 1998


> The arguments that I am not able to stand up against are as follows:
>
> 1) "Even thoug micro-evolution has been proved by Darwin and many times
> since, there is no prove what so ever to the existance of
> macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is an erroneous interference, and there
> is no scientiffic reason to assume a correlation between micro- and
> macro-evolution."

So along that line of reasoning we should not infer that the sun has
anything to do with the way the planets circle it.

First, evolution is a law not a theory, it hold as much creditability as the
law of gravity.  People that argue against it are reiterating the arguments
of a misinformed fool bent on justifying his/her existence as being
something more than a coincidental luck of the draw.  It must be infuriating
for them to spend so much time trying to refute sound science only to come
up with falsities and disinformation that accomplish little more than
confusion the point.

Micro-macro evolution  all you have to do is agree that mutations do occur
within all life, and the environment is in constant flux and read all the
work that talks about the migrating of closely related populations and their
subsequent adaptation to there new environments a lot of good work with
Tribolium Castenium is being done. Or, I forget the organism, but recently
microbiologist have isolated an organism that can live in the harsh
environment of the radioactive cooling tanks of nuclear power plants.  Since
the presence of such stringent genetic error correcting mechanism (to
prevent mutating into oblivion) is not a good thing for a species to have
(because it prevent adaptation of population to new environments) it is
theorized that it has arisen against substantial odds in a short amount of
time to facilitate the institution of a new population in a new niche.

> 2) "Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics."

> 100%  Bull shiznite  The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is as follows(
> Physics 3rd edition: Cutnell/Johnston):

> "Heat flows spontaneously from a substance of higher temperature to a
> substance of lower temperature and does not flow spontaneously in the
> opposite direction."  What does this have to do with anything concearning
> evolution?  Your going to have to fight hard to say the law of entropy is
> not conserved in the presence of life.

> 3) "It is very unlikely (impossible) that complex stereo-isomeric
> molecules in nature arise from non-organic material by accident."

This is freaking absurd an argument met to be lost by virtue of the time it
would require to explain every possible situation.  Simple six carbon sugars
are present into forms  L and D i.e. D-glucose L-glucose their pretty damn
close but yet completely different to a biological organism.  Complex stereo
isomers probably do not arise spontaneously in nature but why would they
have to.  We have neat little thing like enzymes to synthesize them for us.
Moreover, so what........

> 4) "According to information-theory, information (as in our genes)
> cannot increase itself or derive itself from nothing."

More Bull shiznite, DNA did not just plop down on the planet ( or maybe it
did but if it did it came from another planet it did not just plop down
there either). Who cares anyhow, you do not have to create a complete
schematic of the evolution of life to prove that life evolves and has been
evolving.

Ask them to describe to you what water taste like without having you taste
it and "it taste like water" does not count, or "it does not taste like
anything" how can something that has a taste taste like nothing.

> It is asserted that this makes evolution from lower species to higher
> specises impossible.

Then ask them why they are not strict copies of their mothers or rather
fathers,  Ask them why do genes rearrange and recombine and mutate.  A
species declared to be higher than another is a relative statement, but
going with the idea a species is not "higher" (I am assuming you mean more
fit) until it out competes, out reproduces or in general predominates within
its environment.  These are basic evolutionary ideals.

>

The purpose of life is to be born  reproduce your gene pool and die, it is
for good reason.  You propagate your gene pool, and die to make room for you
offspring.  This is a fundamental reason that the species has lasted as long
as it has.   YOu hope your offspring are more fit than others so that they
to will reproduce to continue the gene lineage.

> 5) "Birds could not have evoluted from reptils. Because their presumed
> ancestor, with wings by wich they yet not could fly, would not be fit in
> the struggle for existance."

Your assuming that the wings just popped up out of no where, well they had
about 56 million years to evolve. They just did not pop out feathers and
long wing spans.  56 MILLION YEARS,  even with a rare mutation frequency
this is still plenty of time to evolve quite nicely and quite diversely.
Sure I could see your hesitation if you bought into that 2000 year old
planet crap.  It is all about adaptation and the reproduction of good
things.

I there is a god he would even have to agree with evolution.
Sometime I think there might be a god and he place creationist here to annoy
me.  ( not really just a funny anecdote)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/microbio/attachments/19980406/bb1070fe/attachment.html


More information about the Microbio mailing list