The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by Nemesio
Are you nuts? Are you suggesting sea sponges have intelligence?
Or jellyfish? Or spirogira?

They portray a lot more intelligence than a rock.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
How intelligent in an amoeba? Or an E. coli?

A lot more than a rock.

Originally posted by dj2becker
A lot more than a rock.

No. You are apparently intentionally confusing complexity with intelligence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
First define what you mean by 'evolution'. The term is used to mean many things.

Um, you said that there was an inability for life to form from non-life, and that this constituted
some sort of dispositive proof of however you define evolution. I proposed a hypothetical, since
your belief seems to hinge on the non-existence of abiogenesis. The definition of evolution in
play is whichever one you think is problematic.

Are you going to answer it?

Nemesio

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. You are apparently intentionally confusing complexity with intelligence.

You mean to say that an amoeba is NOT more intelligent than a rock?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Um, you said that there was an inability for life to form from non-life, and that this constituted
some sort of dispositive proof of however you define evolution. I proposed a hypothetical, since
your belief seems to hinge on the non-existence of abiogenesis. The definition of evolution in
play is whichever one you think is problematic.

Are you going to answer it?

Nemesio

I do not think it is possible for life to evolve if life does not exist.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I do not think it is possible for life to evolve if life does not exist.

That doesn't answer the question. I said, if it can be shown from a
laboratory experiment that life can indeed form from non-life, would
you abandon your notion that macro-evolution is a non-viable theory?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
That doesn't answer the question. I said, if it can be shown from a
laboratory experiment that life can indeed form from non-life, would
you abandon your notion that macro-evolution is a non-viable theory?

Nemesio

Not fully, since abiogenesis is only the necessary starting point IMO. But I prefer to tackle something from it's starting point.

On the other hand, I believe the fossil record actually shows that ancient specimens have forms virtually identical to life-forms in existence today. If the fossil record confirms anything, it conforms the reality of little change. Plants and animals that existed 'millions of years ago' are much like plants and animals today.

"The oldest fossils of land dwelling animals are millipedes, dating to more than 425 million years ago. Incredibly the archaic forms are nearly indistinguishable from certain groups living today."

William A. Shear, "Millipedes," American Scientist, vol. 87 (May/June 1999), p.234

Also, today we have tens of millions of fossils that have been unearthed and categorized. We have defined 250,000 distinct fossilized species. If true transitional forms existed, we would have at least the same number of transitional species - perhaps far more, given that many changes would have taken place over time.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You mean to say that an amoeba is NOT more intelligent than a rock?

Yes. Neither have intelligence. The amoeba is more complex though.


[edit; for your education;


in·tel·li·gence (ĭn-tĕl'ə-jəns) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
3. Superior powers of mind. See synonyms at mind.
2. An intelligent, incorporeal being, especially an angel.
3. Information; news. See synonyms at news.
4.
1. Secret information, especially about an actual or potential enemy.
2. An agency, staff, or office employed in gathering such information.
3. Espionage agents, organizations, and activities considered as a group: “Intelligence is nothing if not an institutionalized black market in perishable commodities” (John le Carré😉.

An amoeba fulfils none of those definitions.]

Originally posted by dj2becker
I do not think it is possible for life to evolve if life does not exist.

I highlighted the important words.

You do not think it's possible, yet have provided no evidence for your assertion whatsoever.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Also, today we have tens of millions of fossils that have been unearthed and categorized. We have defined 250,000 distinct fossilized species. If true transitional forms existed, we would have at least the same number of transitional species - perhaps far more, given that many changes would have taken place over time.

Every species is a transitional species, even species found today. Even you must accept that as you have already admitted to accepting that one species can change into another.
Creationists try hard to promote the myth that species are distinct entities which suddenly change into a transitional species and then into a new species and that the so called transitional species is somehow unique and identifiable but has never been observed. Clearly you have fallen for their misinformation campaign.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes. Neither have intelligence. The amoeba is more complex though.

I disagree. Complexity has not been defined in this thread, despite me asking dj2becker to do so several times.
In my opinion, some rocks are more complex than an amoeba of an equivalent size/weight. The rocks atoms are in a more random configuration and thus contain more information. But as I say, without defining complexity we can not draw a valid conclusion. dj2becker knows however that once complexity is rigorously defined it will show that he has used it with several different and opposing meanings during this thread so he will resist any attempts to agree on a definition.