It's quite obvious that you do not understand the first thing about
thermodynamics. There are three thermodynamic systems. An isolated system
is one in which neither matter nor energy is exchanged between the system
itself and its surroundings. A closed system is one in which only energy
can be exchanged between the system itself and its surroundings. An open
system is one in which both energy and matter can be exchanged between the
system itself and its surroundings.
Evolution does not work in either isolated or closed systems; it only works
in open systems. As such, your definition is fatally flawed.
>> Secondly, evolution is actually defined as the change in the frequency of
>> one or more genes within a population of organisms.
>Secondly, as no one is disputing that genes in a population change in
>frequency, your definition is irrelevant.
So you are saying that the only acceptable definition of evolution is a
I should also point out that this is not "my" definition, but it is the
official scientific definition of evolution. As such, your definition is
also flat wrong.
It is equally obvious that you do not know the first thing about basic
evolution or basic science either. As with any scientific theory, there are
two parts to evolution. One is the observed predictable and reproducible
phenomenon that needs to be explained, and the other is the mechanism
proposed to explain it. The observed predictable, reproducible phenomenon
that is called evolution is the change in frequency of one or more genes
within a population. The mechanism Darwin proposed to explain this
phenomenon is natural selection, which has been modified by the addition of
genetics. Other mechanisms have been proposed as well, but they all attempt
to explain the same basic phenomenon. As such, your definition doesn't even
match observable reality.
>> Read any textbook by
>> Douglas Futuyma for the empirical evidence of this that you seek.
>> No doubt you will maintain that only macroevolution is truely evolution
>> in the sense you mean it. There too Futuyma can provide the
>> empirical evidence you seek.
>As I assert Evolution (the indefinite increase of complexity in a system
>only to energy -- such as ameba-to-man) is impossible, I'm confident that
>none of Futuyma's books contain empirical examples.
As I have pointed out, your definition is flawed, flat wrong and contradicts
reality. (Further examples: man did not evolve from the amoeba, though
both man and amoeba evolved from a common ancestor; evolution does not
create complexity, only diversity.) So you are correct that evolution as
YOU envision it is impossible and there can be no empirical evidence to
So let me ask you, what empirical evidence do you have that demonstrates
that your definition is best and thus evolution is impossible?
>I've offered this challenge for years; no one has ever met the challenge.
I have often challenged creationists on this list and elsewhere to provide
empirical evidence that supports their claims, but none have ever met my
challenge either. But then, I don't challenge them with false views of
creation that they can never prove. I simply ask them to prove their own
claims; as such I find their refusal significant. Can you answer my
>Evolutionists can't even show that evolution is possible....
Ah, but it is possible; read Futuyma for the evidence you need to convince
yourself of that.
>...why are we wasting all this
>time debating weak circumstantial evidence that it accounts for the
>complexity of modern life?
There is always the hope that a horse led to water will drink. In other
words, I hold out hope that at least one creationist will be convinced by
the evidence presented that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. A
forlorn hope, perhaps, but then we Irish have a passion for lost causes.
Kevin L. O'Brien