₦airaland Forum

damogul:
Vestigial means An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms.

Since the jaw bones of mans alleged ancestors are said to be bigger than ours today shouldnt we say our jaw is a vestigial organ since it is smaller?

Since the nostril of mans alleged ancestor is described as being bigger and ours smaller shouldnt our nose bones be seen as vestigial organs as well since they are smaller?

Your talk about vestigial organs is an assumption same way they had an assumption with 180 allegedly vestigial organs in the 1900s but today that is almost squashed.

Are assumptions fact?

lol @generally reduced in size...

Keep on getting wrong information and stating them as what it is supposed to mean...

FYI wisdoom teeth has harmful effects...

damogul:
What happened to 175 of the 180 originally declared vestigial organs?

give me scientific journals on it...declaring it as a fact
Not his textbook...

And he listed 86...
People interpreted it to 180...

damogul:
Of course they wouldnt be your concern especially when your vestigial organ argument has fallen on its face

the funny thing is that vestiges and atavism is not placed on similarity

Who is Robert Wiedersheim? Look him up. Below is an extract from wikipedia

funny...
You seem to think ''a single man's opinion is an authority in science

---

He picked up on Darwin’s concept of “rudimentary” organs such as listed in the The Descent of Man:


Although Wiedersheim's originally published list contains 86 items later interpretations enlarged his list to 180 vestiges.

carefully look at the underlined and the bolded...
Do i need to say more?

damogul:
Red Herring! We are on atavism pls.
Answer my question!

what question?

damogul:
[s]This is what you and science are doing...

[b]Hasty Generalization: A little sample is used to arrive at a grand conclusion. Lets assume your local Motorcycle seller sells Bajaj bikes; a hasty generalization is to conclude that all motorcycle sellers in Nigeria only sell Bajaj Motorcycles.

Begging the Question or circular logic. An assumption is used as the basis to prove a conclusion; in turn, that conclusion is used as a basis to prove the original assumption.[/s]

rubbish

Simply because you noticed a similarity you ASSUME we share the same ancestor (if such is even possible).

when i made my comment i clearly said ''some form of common ancestor''
maybe the translation may be lost to you...
2)Maybe you forgot the post i quoted had to do with ''bible creationism'' i.e man as distinct from animals with no direct links
of which atavism disproves...

3) unlike you...im open to the possibility of an evolutionary designer(s)..the images of atavism i got are even from a Top christian evolutionist site,citing the biological journal

Similarity does not prove anything same way the pictures above do not prove those people are related or share the same family tree because THEY DO NOT!

Those are actually identical UNRELATED LOOK ALIKES. You would think they are related but they are not. Genetics may seem similar simply because we are all human but they would not be the same to prove relationship.

ehya..but my stance is not on look-alike..so i dont know what you're saying...

[s]
Same way a 70% or alleged 90% or whatever percentage DNA similarity between man and bonobos or chimps do not prove ancestry.

ALL WE HAVE ARE ASSUMPTIONS. PERIOD!

I have made this very simple for you[/s]

yes..the same way elements which have seven electrons in their outermost shells always form negative ions etc are hastily called halogens..and is an assumption not a fact right?

damogul:
MrMontella are these people from the same family or are they related?

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/13/article-2247797-168104F4000005DC-894_634x524.jpg

https://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2015/03/05/3573443f-dd73-43ec-8919-42bac288e148/resize/620x465/796fea249dfaabe0222525877d64dc76/brunelle-meredith-h-mckeon-and-heather-zimmerman-atlanta-2014.jpg

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-15-at-9.19.14-AM.png

https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/twins.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/01/a1/c3/01a1c333580a2552b95088262f85ea43.jpg

https://img.topyaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Russell-Crowe-and-Ben-McKenzie.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/16/article-2279851-17A0C0D7000005DC-879_634x359.jpg

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/25/article-0-172597DA000005DC-933_634x773.jpg

how are they my concern pls?

damogul:
Were the 180 vestigial organs inclusive of the appendix not seen as traits lost or rendered useless during our evolutionary journey?

you keep on screaming ''180 vestigial organs'' with no proof of it...


Starting there would be a good milestone!

damogul:
on the contrary, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Who laid claims to 180 vestigial organs initially was it not Atavism? Yes or no

Who included thr apendix as a vestigial organ was it not atavism? Yes or no

No and No..
Atavism is the re-appearance of traits lost during our evolutionary journey oga..

damogul:
I am surprised you dodged replying to doctoraliens debunking of your claims.

baba i just came online...
He debunked nothing..and he's misinformed..many rubbishes..

First he claimed genes cannot add to existing genes...i disproved that...
Then he claimed mutations cannot create novel information...i still disproved that..

Now he's saying rubbish about e.coli...
I will do his mention justice...relax

damogul:
was it not the same atavism that gave a seal of approval that man had 180 vestigial organs? What then happened to 175?

If those were debunked then atavism is still an assumption...simple as ABC.

If it was fact then they would not have been debunked. Same way the rest would soon be crossed off just like the apendix was also authoritatively spoken of but is now off that list.

Am I lying?

@the bolded Nope!
Clearly you have no idea what im talking about!

---

also...
Please provide proof of this fabled seal of approval...

If what a person/scientist publishes in his own book is what you call a seal of approval or scientifically reviewed and approved fact...
Then clearly you're lost on a lot of things...

damogul:
Let what sink? Were the initial 180 vestigial organs not debunked to 5?

Is the apendix not about to be removed from that list?

If they are then atavism is an assumption as the other alleged vestigial organs will also be crossed off shortly.

Take your time to understand and sponge this up...EVOLUTION IS A FARCE AND FULL OF ASSUMPTIONS!

as expected...
You're just making ''noises''...

Im quite busy..
Well..Im not suprised by the nonsense im seeing here...

damogul:
Did you know that in the 1900s there were about 180 assumed vestigial organs before the number began being trimmed down when they discovered their functions?

that has no importance to my statement...
Stop this red herring..

Now we have just 5 and even those 5 are still being trimmed down because the Appendix and the coccyx are almost as good as out of that list of 5.

red herring..
And what do you mean by 5?
5 vestiges in humans or an all-round encompassing figure..?

There is no absolute empirical data backing up atavism...merely assumptions and speculations. If the evolutionary link between mans ancestors and man are still speculative then where did the fact that the tail bone being a vestigial organ come from?

Can you show me this empirical truthful link data?

cc seun

Here's well respected scientific Journals advocating atavism..as proof of evolution..
Nature.com:Atavism and Human Tails


www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(10)00858-4]Cell.com:Atavism

copy the second link;cell.com to your browser if you intend visiting it...it refused hyperlinking...



[url=onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.36234/full]Atavism And Various Atavism Cases[/url]


Here's a text from a Top creationist website;ICR on the human embryonic Tail..

the embryonic human tail is in reality the developing coccyx or tail bone a vitally important, fully human feature

https://www.icr.org/article/1068

It is this embroyonic tail which fails to regress sometimes that expresses itself as a phenotype..
Hence the human tails in new born babies

so...the embroyonic tail is a developing coccyx...and

Tails are the rear end of an animal's body; in general , the term refers to a distinct, flexible appendage to the torso. It is the part of the body that corresponds roughly to the sacrum and coccyx in mammals, reptiles, and birds.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail

---

images of atavistic human tails can be found here


let it sink sire!...take your time and study evolution....not these uninformed rambles..
Cheers!

Like Wisdom teeth in humans


pelvic bones in snakes



limbs in whales


eyes of cavefishes





etc

DoctorAlien:
The unobservable idea of molecules-to-man evolution hypothesizes that all living things have been derived from a common, simple ancestor in our distant past. This would require the accumulation of novel information over a long period of time through genetic mutations. However, Lenski’s experiment demonstrates that the vast majority of fitness benefits are actually due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information. A possible exception to this tendency is the evolution of citrate utilization in aerobic conditions; however, no novel information was gained in this instance as this ability was the result of previously existing information being rearranged and used in a different way.The novelty here was that no one had ever observed a promoter capture event for a gene involved in central metabolism.

Cc: MrMontella

the bolded is highly wrong and a misunderstanding of the experiment itself...

I'd advise you read the article published by the researchers themselves to see how wrong you are and how information was accumulated over generations with mutations
[url=myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/index.html]researchers article[/url]

---

I dont understand what you mean by information ''cant'' be added..

See..if this --- ATGCATGCGTA is a genome sequence...
And GTA is a stop codon...
If during replication...a mutation occurs on the stop codon and the stop codon is not intolerant to mutation...
E.g ATGCATGC''GTA''--replicates to ATGCATGC''GCA''...The mutation is GTA to GCA...if GCA happens to be a viable amino acid...the new genome sequence would be a different allele which means new information has been added..
Or has it not?
Read up :https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation

---

on the molecule to man...
Speciation has been observed....

Atavism and vestigial organs are proof of some form of common ancestors..

All these baseless claims sef

DoctorAlien:
If your brain cannot understand the fact that I was addressing "ape to human" evolution, then don't mention me again.

The bolded above: it's either you're deliberately lying or you didn't read well about Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiments.

i dont know where you get your facts from but addition of genes to a chromosome has been confirmed by researches to exist through mutations..


Genome size can increase by duplication, insertion, or polyploidization. Recombination can lead to both DNA loss or gain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_evolution#Genome_size


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3076554/


Detailing insertion

Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements.
Insertions in the coding region of a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA (splice site mutation), or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Classification_of_mutation_types


[b][url=www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/deletions.html]here's how insertions works[/url]

KingEbukasBlog:
Please address those 3 I mentioned . The only mention I had from you was the animal's spirits argument . That's all .

You never addressed the OP .



You are the one who loves listing out logical fallacies to appear smart . Anytime I list a logical fallacy , I prove the statement is one . But you just scream reductio ad absurdum and when you are asked to prove it , you run away like a coward

www.nairaland.com/3511938/demystifying-evolution-exposing-it-fraud/28#51897412
And posts below it
seems you love making ''noise''

well can you now keep quiet?

And stop being a logical fallacy promoter

DoctorAlien:
Perhaps the most famous of all observations in Dr. Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment was when an E. coli population began to utilize a new energy source (citrate) that they normally could not use under aerobic conditions. It is important to note that E. coli already have the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among other required factors). The genetic changes that underlie this particular adaptation are complex, but a key event involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter. This amplification captured apreviously existing and aerobically expressed promoter (the promoter forrnk) which could then direct transcription of the citrate transporter (citT). Repeated tandem amplifications refined this function.

Cc: MrMontella

maybe the author of your article forgot the part where ''mutation'' made this possible..


And two... on the ''promoter''
You need to understand a ''term'' before using it vaguely..

ambassagod:
this guy deserves some ban.

why would any sane person act in such a ridiculous manner of screaming one, two three..., on a thread like this? what connection has 1 2 3 4 got to do with the evolution lies the op just exposed?

only insane people would act in such a manner.

please mind yourself a bit.

relax dude...
Was booking space...

KingEbukasBlog:
Logical fallacy , argumentum ad lapidem , dismissing an argument as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity .

1.Where is the proof the OP is baseless

2.Where is the proof the OP is uninformed

3.Show the OP that he has wrong understanding of various things

check your mentions...
I know you love listing out logical fallacies to appear smart..
Even though you're a well known commiter of fallacies...

damogul:
Who addressed the article? You gave an opinion which is entirely yours. I suppose the others who said something contrary and 4kings who learned something new from it saw something you did not see

Or do you see yourself as the litmus test for the article?

my opinions?
I cited a lot of documents there sire...
Not entirely my opinion..but the opinion of well informed scientists...


But nevertheless..your claims are baseless...

KingEbukasBlog:
Who addressed the article

Can someone end this delusion ?

what delusion are you talking about?
Delusion is when you stylishly input evolution as ''progressive creationism''
the Op is baseless...uninformed and with wrong understandings of various things..

DoctorAlien:
It must be remembered that fitness improvements or even gains of protein function are not equivalent to a gain of novel information (GONI). A loss of information occurring in a regulatory region may improve gene product function by increasing its expression, but this would not represent a GONI. Neither would a mutation that brings back a function that was previously lost, a decrease in specificity of a protein’s function, a rearrangement of already existing information, the duplication of existing information, or the general increase in diversity over time. A GONI must involve a mutational event or series of events that enable the production of novel protein(s) that can perform a specific and previously unknown activity. This type of mutation has not been observed.

Cc: MrMontella

You believe a mutation can lead to a loss if ''information''/''gene'' but not a ''gain''...is that logical?

On your fitness claim...
This article deals with it plainly

[b]Even a variation of traits is a production of Novelty..
Why? Because there was no variation before...




here are researches in which Mutations led to an increase in Genes/information...
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown
et al. 1998 Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and
Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al.
1996)

and here's your proof of mutation leading to Novel Information in proteins.
Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the
duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

hopefulLandlord:
Someone is pained!!!

lol... They've been crying about the article.. Now the article has been adressed...they are still crying!

DoctorAlien:
Findings from this experiment demonstrate that the vast majority of adaptations are due to the loss of unique genetic information. This is utterly opposed to the requirements of molecules-to-man evolution and is why Lenski’s experiment actually provides evidence against the truth of this idea.

You get it? E. coli did not "evolve" into a citrate-utilizing organim: it simply rearranged the previously existing information to be able to utilize citrate in aerobic conditions.

Cc: MrMontella

If it were to be so, other researchers on E.coli would have gotten the same results so easily...
But clearly inverse is the case..
E.g Dustin
Van Hofwegen and Scott Minnis of the University of Idaho,US


also,

The inability to grow aerobically on citrate is a long-recognized
trait that, in part, defines E. coli as a species.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461117/

[color=black]NOTE:This scientific Journal's 's Analysis of the experiment was culled from a well respected scientific journal;NATURE[/color]

Enter the article...and
Find in page:Genome sequences and Phylogeny

Mutations including single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as well as deletions, insertions and some chromosomal rearrangements were identified (Supplementary Table 2) by comparing reads to the genome of the ancestral strain, REL606

Then find in page : ''Perspective''
clearly...it is written there

The evolution of citrate-use also highlights that such
actualizing mutations are part of the process
by which novelties arise

i beg you to read the full article...and scientific articles not some christian apologetic nonsense..


Or better still visit the [url=myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/]website[/url] for the experiment itself..
[url=myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/index.html]Here's their article on it..[/url]
And a summmary
myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/summdata.html

---

and please what is the unique information that was lost?
As the bacteria was still able to digest glucose...

4kings:
On that thread, I was concentrating only on this universe(from big bang).

aiit..
To me, i believe so long as something is existing...Time exists...
I really dont buy this eternal stuff
and the worst; a timeless ageless dimension nonsense...

damogul... I have adressed your op... I saw not one reasonable objective ''exposing'' evidence there... Just ''talk'' and random quotes from any scientist...
Try better..

4everGod:
Continuation...... Part 5

Conclusively, regarding the formation of incipient forms of life, British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward verbalized, “Genes seem to be built so as to sanction changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to avert those inhibitions from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very facilely engender incipient varieties within a species, and might infrequently engender an incipient (though kindred) species, but—despite cyclopean efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to engender entirely incipient forms of life”

conclusively your assertions are baseless...

I dont know what you're talking about Mutations being always harmful..

[b] An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10
functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al.
2007).

Many other documented cases of beneficial mutations are out there...even to [url= http://www.gate.net/ ~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html]humans..[/url]


And in all your long notes...you forgot a Major issue;Harmful Mutations do not survive as long as Beneficial Mutations

A Mutation may be harmful or helpful depending on the environment...


[quote]The second issue is cognate to the lack of any transitional forms. World famous evolutionist and paleontologist Dr. Gaylord Simpson liberatingly verbalized, “This customary absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an virtually ecumenical phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of virtually all orders of all classes of animals…and it is ostensibly additionally true of the analogous categories of plants”.

please provide concrete evidence for his statement...nevertheless...
Your lie that they aren't any transitional fossils is alarming and shocking...

What then is the Archeopteryx? Or the Homo Neanderthals?

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. Are you expecting to find finely detailed sequences of
fossils lasting for millions of years? Is Fossilization that simple?

[url=talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]There are too many] transitional fossils...[/url]

The National Center For Science Education,US confirms the existence of Transitional Fossils...
https://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764

[color=#990000]Artistic Science

All the hoopla emanated from nothing more than part of a jaw bone and some skull fragments—nothing else! The ingenious minds at National Geographic engendered a CONSUMMATELY FICTIONAL rendering from virtually no evidence

I dont know where you're getting your gibberish claims and lies from...But the Evolution of Whales is one of the [url=talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta]Most documented..[/url]

Later, a more consummate skeleton of this same creature was discovered. With more facts in place, it was conspicuous that this creature was solely a land animal. However, the later revelation received very little media attention and no rectification was published!

Am guessing you mean the pakicetus??
Well sorry to bust your excitement.....its full fossils were used in its re-construction...thats an outdated claim..

In summary, scientists have discovered that when cosmic rays come into contact with earth’s atmosphere, they react with nitrogen-14 and engender carbon-14. In turn, carbon-14 then reacts with oxygen, engendering carbon dioxide. Plants take in carbon dioxide. Animals in turn consume plants, ingesting the carbon dioxide. When plants and animals die, their decay changes carbon-14 back into nitrogen-14. And hence, the cycle perpetuates

1[b]Where is there the slightest bit of evidence that
cosmic rays or neutrinos do affect decay rates?[/b]




2 Radiation high enough to affect nuclear decay rates
by several orders of magnitude would
sterilize the planet.

3 In nuclear power generators,Neutrino radiation is intense...but the decay of radioactive elements are not intefered with..

Scientists have generally surmised that the ratio of these isotopes has remained constant in the atmosphere.

Multiple radiometric methods are used to [url=talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html]''confirm''[/url] the dates...even non radiometric methods are used to calibrate the C-14 dating

Taking a break now. Will continue shortly[/b]

90% of your article/thread is just noise...notes upon notes with no objective points raised
all i see here are forms of appeal to emotions and appeal to ridicules..


Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

4everGod:
[b]Continuation.....Part 3

The most common is the “Big Bang” theory.

Big Bang or Big Hoax?

At its very center, the Big Bang theory states that something caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial singular event. After this first cause, another theory is now brought into play. The inflationary model. This theory attempts to explain how the universe expanded and grew from microscopic to billions of light-years across. It was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.

Both the Big Bang and the inflationary model go against the basic laws of science. We have determined that energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state with less usable energy. Ths is entropy and not into larger, more complex and organized systems, such as the universe.

this is based on a wrong understanding of both the BBT and the LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS...
1)The universe is expanding...and its maximum entropy is also increasing..
2)the law of thermodynamics applies to only closed isolated systems....The universe cannot be a closed system if its entropy is increasing..ille est;expansion of the universe..
Many misconceptions in your post

For the universe to begin in that manner there would have to be a nearly infinite amount of energy that triggered the Big Bang. This simple fact is usually ignored!

Thats what a singularity is..
So i dont understand your claim...
The BBT Simply states; in the initial stages of the universe...it was more dense,hot and smaller as opposed to a present less dense,coool and ever increasing size..

An even bigger quagmire is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is a basic fundamental law of science. It clearly states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form. This totally goes against the Big Bang theory!

pls can you explain to everybody here...how a singularity means Nothing...
Also the big bang doesnt say about the creation of the universe...it only says [color=blue]''how the present universe came to be''

If energy cannot be created, then an immensely mind boggling amount of it cannot appear from nothingness. Evolution pundits understand this problem. Often, focus is quickly diverted from how the universe started, to an explanation of how it inflated. By burying the initial creation of matter as an irrelevant point, scientists have created a series of twists and turns and mirages which, as we have seen before, is often the best—and only way to explain nearly every facet of evolution.[/color]

i dont know where you get your ideas from...but the big bang theory never said
''In the beginning Nothing expanded into something''...
Please get facts right before criticism..
Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

4everGod:
Continuation...Part 2

They even say that macro evolution is just micro evolution over extremely long periods of time.

thats what it is...
The rational behind it is that
''little drops of water make a mighty ocean''

There is enough proof supporting micro evolution. For example, when a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is a pointer to micro evolution. Such proof is often used to “prove” macro evolution, thereby employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

[size=18pt][b]so you agree that EVOLUTION IS A FACT[/size]
what else am i doing on this thread then?

There is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution...... absolutely none!

this is a fat lie you know...
Speciation has been observed a number of times...
For Speciation to occur..large changes must have happened...Ergo;Macro Evolution.
speciation
Go to 5.0 in this page

speciation

Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test? It could be said that with no observed examples of macro evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific study. Going further, nearly all evolutionists declare that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven. True or False? [/color]

Evolution actually meets the two conditions..
E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment


Nature.com;Fruit flies

its even been currently observed in a [url=news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/]lizard[/url]
which overtime can lead to a new specie...

no real points raised...just ''talk, and talk,, and talk''

Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

4everGod:
This is the law of cause and effect.[/color]

I will focus on the second law in this instance (covering all in more detail later in the expose). The second law states that the total entropy (unusable energy) of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. In ordinary words, it can be summarized by saying that when left alone, everything “burns” its usable energy, eventually reaching a point of no usable energy.

Left alone, energy always changes from usable to unusable.

This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws are immutable and complement one another.

merging cause and effect with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we reach a fascinating conclusion. Every effect has a cause and, over time, all systems have less usable energy. This means that the effect always has less usable energy than the cause. let me say it in another way, every cause results in a lesser effect. The effect must have less energy, be less complicated, be less advanced than its initial cause.

The theory of evolution states that a more “evolved” life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause)—in violation of both cause and effect and the second law of thermodynamics.

i dont see how evolution violates the First law of thermodynamics..
Its you who got it all wrong...
A cause of evolution is survival.... the survival instincts imbedded in every living thing..
Survival is where Natural selection takes its ''shelter'' from..
And not a simple life-form or something..

So begins the quagmire of evolution

This rubbish assestment of yours is based on a flawed understanding of the law of thermodynamics...
Nature constantly creates complex ''effects'' from simpler ''causes''
or as you may put it---an increase in the usuable energy...
a mature tomato plant(complex)
has more usable energy than the seed(simple) it grew from..
can you please explain to me how life itself does not violate the second law of thermodynamics if evolution does?

The universe is expanding,therefore its maximum entropy is also increasing And More order is being seen...so therefore,,how can you still expect life to be a closed isolated system?

Your claim is baseless and laughable at best

Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

jonbellion:
looool
Image of god

i wasnt around much during their rambles here..
Wasnt here last night...m just reading the nonsenses the theists have been posting now...
Its funny...

4everGod:
Creationism can be tackled on another thread so please stop derailing this one. This is about evolution.Thank you.

atavism is indirectly related to the op...
As it is a proof of evolution..

But if you want the thread to be about tackling the OP..no problem..

Hint me on the pages where you started raising points...to many comments inbetween and some of your posts are dificult to read...

Kingebukasblog...
You said chimpanzees are not created in the image of God because they dont have spirits...
Only man does...
The bible disagrees

Ecclesiastes 3:21 Good News Translation (GNT) How can anyone be sure that the human spirit goes upward while an animal's spirit
goes down into the ground?

see? According to the bible, animals have SPIRITS...Ille est; an immaterial part.