I do agree it is possible that over millions of years breeding a dog could result in something other than a dog. However not only is that not currently testable, it's also brining in intelligent influence into the scenario, and in a way would only support Creationism (intelligent design).
How does that bring intelligent influence into the scenario?
How did the water cut through a mile-deep hole of sheer rock in such a short amount of time? Glaciers form U-shaped valleys, not steep cliffs.
I understand what you're saying in this analogy, but I'm unsure of how new pieces of paper are added?
Random chance.
In my original analogy only energy was added to the system, which is like the Earth here. Except my analogy demonstrated that if everything is left to it's natural abilities the energy added to the system would result in chaos, and entropic actions would occur to the paper resembling information loss (populations dieing, mutations, etc.).
Energy added to the system will not necessarily result in chaos. Energy is naturally trying to move away from the Earth into space. This is why the temperature is not continually increasing every second (e.g. temperature goes down at night).
Also, the canines are still both types of dogs and the analogy doesn't demonstrate that they can become anything but dogs.
I'm saying that C. lephoagus can slowly evolve into other canines, such as Canus lupus and Canis aureus. Canus lupus and Canis aureus are different species of canines that cannot interbreed to form fertile offspring.
The pieces of paper represented the current state of the sum of organisms in a population. As energy is added to the system (weather elements representing the sun) chaos ensues, and over time entropy occurs to the pieces of paper, and when they fall off of the table they become unusable (this would exemplify traits dieing off within a species). So then the analogy shows that over time chances of any new information forming (as in a functional shape) are infinitesimally small, and the chances of the shape deteriorating into chaos over time is inescapable. That is what I was getting out.
So how, in your analogy, does the population take the place of the swept-off shreds of paper? And who's to say there's only one functional shape? A triangle can have different side lengths and angles, but a three-sided, closed figure is still a triangle.
The only plausible way for the shape to maintain its state is for some form of intelligent intervention to constantly correct the alignment of the pieces.
Debatable. It's possible that a higher being has shaped life as it is and has been. However, if the designer is omniscient, why are there extinct species? Furthermore, I believe you are underestimating the power of brute force applied to randomness. In no other environment except Earth have humans detected life. On just one planet out of the near-infinite number of worlds do we know for sure that life exists. 1 out of infinity, however improbable, is still possible.
Not only is there no way for you to know that new genetic information is formed and successfully passed on into the gene pool,
We can observe DNA. We have observed different combinations of DNA molecules. We have seen viruses inject their own genes into a host cell's DNA. We have spliced genes and restructured the DNA of bacteria. We have seen organisms mutate and rearrange their DNA on their own, asexually and sexually. Do you need more examples?
but to say it's [the creation of new genetic information] more likely to happen than with harmful mutations is absurd. Here's a list of some common genetic mutations currently being passed around:
XYou have a finite list of genetic disorders. There is an infinite list of mutations that may help an organism. Things like a straight nose or red hair could be considered a mutation. If anything, a mutation has just as much chance to be harmful rather than beneficial. And as said before, the vast majority of mutations have no effect on an organism's chance of survival.
[quote]
I wasn't saying Earth is a closed system. I was saying that all closed systems deteriorate into the path of least resistance. Similarly, all systems decay towards a state of equilibrium. The Earth is no exception. However the Sun provides energy to the Earth constantly, so the state that Earth is in stays in a nice balance above the state of equilibrium.
This is only possible due to chlorophyll harnessing the sun's energy, as energy applied to a system without intelligent intervention results in chaos.
Energy will naturally dissipate back into space without chlorophyll. Neptune has no chlorophyll, and doesn't seem to be evaporating any time soon.
Also, energy applied to a system without intelligent intervention does not necessarily result in chaos. As you said, the Earth is not a closed system (the only real closed system is the universe), so energy naturally moves towards equilibrium (a.k.a. floats back into space).
I'm confused. Please explain?
I went ahead and placed a fan blowing wind in a spiral, and put some dust in there (
X). You can see a cup also, which represent the earth, while the wind represents the sun. How long will it take before the dust within Earth in the physics simulation to form a recognizable shape? Perhaps a square? If you have an infinite amount of time, it will eventually happen. If you don't, the chances are so small they practically equal 0.
A square is not the only shape that has a possible chance at surviving. A rectangle, or a circle, or a blob 3 inches wide and two inches tall with rounded corners and a half-inch spike coming out the left side could survive in the proper environments. You're saying that 1 out of a large number (infinity, perhaps) is impossible. Once again, it is improbable, but still possible. Thus we have detected life on Earth and no life anywhere else.
I'm not at all religious, but the reason why evolution is still only a theory is because everything would have had to evolve out of nothing. If the cell is the most basic unit of life, and evolution is the change over time in a selection of organisms, the cell and its contents could not have been evolved because there were no populations to begin with.
There's a theory that states that mitochondria and chloroplasts were similar to proto-cells. If you really want to know more I can to research it later.
It [evolution] actually doesn't [require abiogenesis to be true]. Even if God made the universe and then created early life, evolution could still be viable.
Agree.
[Biblical] Creation relies on evolution not being true, but evolution doesn't rely on creation not being true.
Quoted for truth.
Win by luck, lose by skill.
Vi3t-X
