re: #185 docjay

continued…

Yet Darwinists continue to view random mutation as the engine for evolution. That is what I mean by not being falsifiable. Secondly, when we come to natural selection, we find Darwinists using it to explain everything. When you do that, you are positing something that is not falsifiable. Also, if natural selection worked, it would just select away the weakest of the current crop of species; how would it add information to the gene pool?

But I gave you several ways in which evolutionary theory is falsifiable. But being falsifiable doesn’t entail that a theory will be falsified. Evolutionary theory doesn’t explain everything; I have yet to see it applied to physics, for instance. And externally sourced and spliced in artifactual retroviral DA sequences, which comprise, for instance, fully 8% of the human genome, add genetic information to the species in which they are embedded. Selection doesn’t just select against those mutations that poorly exploit their ecological niche, it also selects FOR those mutations that nore efficiently exploit the selfsame niches. And those mutations are informational changes that add to what existed before.

I hope you’re not leaning towards some sort of 2nd law of thermodynamics entropy argument, because that only applies to closed systems, and the terrestrial biosphere is an open system, receiving energy from outside (from the sun).

Next you imply that 530 million years is plenty of time for all the variations to occur to take us from the creatures then to forms today. There are simply too many variations between the Cambrian period and the present to account for the changes that have occurred to have occurred randomly. When you start doing the probabilities, you quickly run out of time. Also, note my earlier comment about random changes. As a rule, order does not arise from disorder.

No you don’t run out of time; successful mutations become the baselines from which new mutations issue, and mutations thus aggregate. Plus, we are not talking about a purely random process, as the environmental selection that acts upon genetic mutations is itself a nonrandom process. Also, the sexual shuffling and reshuffling of genetic material provides another source of variations to be selected - pre-existent genes in novel combinations. To put your mind at ease regarding the time issue, I suggest you go to this link:

talkorigins.org

then scroll down to the section titled: [1.2.3 Statistical impossibility of proteins?]. You will find how Dawkins designed an iterative computer model that removes all reasonable doubt as to time constraints.

And your ‘order does not arise from disorder’ remark only applies to a closed system, which, as I pointed out above, the terrestrial biosphere is NOT.

to be continued…