Entropy contradict Evolution (testimony, Creator, Earth, contradiction, creation)

[Zero Faith]

Incorrect. Evolution also requires the generation of diversity, a random process as well as a 'culling' of the fittest.

I'm not an evolutionary theorist, so I may well be out of my league here. Generation of diversity is a product of survival of the fittest, not an independent entity, I would think. Randomness is the entire topic of this argument, so its existence goes without saying. As for 'culling' of the fittest, I would argue that this is contained within the definition of 'survival of the fittest'.

If I'm wrong, please explain in layman's terms -- I had to look up what 'generation of diversity' meant and still am not too clear on the definition

[(Q)]

I'm not an evolutionary theorist, so I may well be out of my league here.

One need not be an evolutionary theorist to understand the basics of Darwins theory.

Generation of diversity is a product of survival of the fittest, not an independent entity, I would think.

Not really, it is the random process of genome production from one generation to the other.

For example, if two parents bore seven offspring, the offspring will receive a genome from two distinct pools (parents) in a completely random process (not natural selection) and as a result some of the offspring will be better adapted for survival than the others. If there is only enough food to feed some of those offspring, THEN the other process of natural selection will 'cull' the most fittest of the offspring competing for the food.

As for 'culling' of the fittest, I would argue that this is contained within the definition of 'survival of the fittest'.

I would argue it is a better definition.

[Zero Faith]

I think I'm beginning to get it.

Please tell me if this is correct:

In the matter of a replicating molecule, generation of diversity is represented by the molecules creating copies of themselves; the diversity is in the random mutations occuring from one generation to the next.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Zero Faith

I think I'm beginning to get it.

Please tell me if this is correct:

In the matter of a replicating molecule, generation of diversity is represented by the molecules creating copies of themselves; the diversity is in the random mutations occuring from one generation to the next.

Not to be "nit-picky" but substitute DNA for molecule and add "of genes" after mutations.

-pah-

[Zero Faith]

Pah:

I'm discussing how these elements could be present before the existence of DNA, in the evolution of even more primitive molecules that mimic life (in terms of reproduction and random mutation). Thus, neither DNA nor genes are involved.

[(Q)]

In the matter of a replicating molecule, generation of diversity is represented by the molecules creating copies of themselves; the diversity is in the random mutations occuring from one generation to the next.

Not really. Molecules creating copies of themselves is not the generation of diversity, it is already assumed. The generation of diversity is the 7 (offspring) genome randomly generated from 2 (parents) genome.

[Zero Faith]

Okay, but we're talking about protocells and primitive neander-proteins without genes. These molecules can evolve, so, if generation of diversity is mandatory for evolution, can you point to where generation of diversity is involved in terms of this molecular evolution?

[Raphael]

How arrogant of mankind and science to think that because we cannot create energy that nothing can. Speaking of immutable physical laws that operate throughout the universe there is a law that states. That all motion is caused by something outside the thing in motion. Energy is in motion and therefore must be caused by something not in motion having the power to create the first motion. Matter did not always exist. Or your claiming that energy in motion existed for all eternity without shape or mass or form and then without being acted on by any outside force took on a different direction. This also is against the law of physics. That states an object in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted on by an external force. Then again maybe your claiming that all these broken physics laws created a universe in which all things obey the laws of physics. Wow.

[Mr Spinkles]

Raphael--I disagree with almost every sentence in your post...

Originally Posted by Raphael

How arrogant of mankind and science to think that because we cannot create energy that nothing can.

It's not arrogant--energy has never been observed to be created by anything. There are also mathematical formulas based on thermodynamics that make accurate predictions for given scenarios. If energy could be created or destroyed, those formulas shouldn't work--but they do.

Speaking of immutable physical laws that operate throughout the universe there is a law that states. That all motion is caused by something outside the thing in motion.

Which law is that--could you clarify?

Energy is in motion and therefore must be caused by something not in motion having the power to create the first motion.

Energy is in motion? What about potential energy...

Matter did not always exist.

Unless there was matter before the Big Bang, my understanding is that matter has always existed.