evolution is dead, god is alive!

C1 - Contrary to Pro's assertion, the Second Law of thermodynamics does not require that "every system is created, its level of entropy is increased." If Pro's assertion were true it would be impossible to build a car or bake a cake, because the products of those efforts are more ordered than their starting ingredients. The second Law of thermodynamics is correctly stated at http://en.wikipedia.org... "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, ...." Note the reference to an "isolated system." The earth is not an isolated system. It receives energy from the Sun. Therefore order can and does increase on the earth, as happened during the process of evolution. C2. Pro asserts "the imaginary part of ... evolution ... says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection" Pro's assertion is unsupported and untrue. Mutations occur naturally when the genetic material fails to copy correctly, and also externally by cosmic rays, chemical agents, and other such occurrences. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Mutations that are harmful tend to be eliminated by natural selection, while those that are beneficial to the species survive. A counterexample to Pro's contention is the origin of blue eyes. Originally, everyone had brown eyes, then a genetic mutation occurred about 10,000 years ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Being harmless, the eye color mutation has not been removed by natural selection, at least not in 10,000 years. Contrary to Pro's assertion that there must have been, there was no genetic material for blue eyes inherent in humans. C3. Animals are only one of six kingdoms of living things http://www.ric.edu... Phyla are major groups of animal species. consequently, Pro has not addressed all of evolution, only animal evolution at a level well above species. I agree there was an evolutionary "explosion" of animals in the Cambrian period. It's not particularly problematic that no new phyla have since evolved, because phyla are superficial classifications of animals. Any new animal found is assigned to a some existing phylum based upon its superficial characteristics: "A phylum is not a fundamental division of nature, such as the difference between electrons and protons. It is simply a very high-level grouping in a classification system created to describe all currently living organisms. This system is imperfect, even for modern animals: different books quote different numbers of phyla, mainly because they disagree about the classification of a huge number of worm-like species. As it is based on living organisms, it accommodates extinct organisms poorly, if at all." http://en.wikipedia.org... Nonetheless, during the Cambrian explosion species appeared to evolve at something like ten times the rate of other periods. This is not well explained, because the fossil record from 565 million years ago is sketchy. Suggested factors include (a) dramatically increased oxygen content of the atmosphere, (b) climate conditions of substantial warming, and (c) evolution of "tipping point" structures, notably vision. It also may be that many of the forms evident in Cambrian fossils had previously existed, but were not preserved or discovered. That evolution occurred faster during that period is scarcely evidence that evolution did not occur at all. The claim is a non sequitur. C5. The "tree of life" concept is largely independent of evolution. Evolutionary theory depends upon (a) genetic mutations occurring and (b) natural selection preferring mutations more suitable to the environment. Moreover, the properties of unusual microorganisms cannot be generalized to other species. "Only within the last couple of decades, archaea were recognized as a distinct domain of life. They are extremophiles, meaning they thrive in physically or geochemically extreme conditions. They have similar ecological roles as bacteria. Both of these organisms react to various antibiotics in a different way." http://www.differencebetween.net... Note that archea and bacteria are two of the kingdoms of living things outside of plants and animals. Their apparent ability to swap genetic material is unique, and it directly contradicts Pro's C2. If genetic material is swapped among microorganisms, then either the organism that results is better adapted to it's environment or not. Evolution thus persists, with this source of mutation. This undoubtedly makes it more difficult to trace evolution in these species, but it does not question the evolutionary process. C5. St. Anselm's ontological argument has long been disproved. The fault is that conceiving of something as real does not make it anymore real than was before you conceived it that way. Ontological arguments may be thus applied to make anything exist with equal validity: "Following Anselm, we might say that, since you understand the expression "smallest really existent Martian", there is, in your understanding, at least one smallest really existent Martian. (Or, apparently following Descartes, one might say that real existence is "part of" — or "contained in" — the idea of a smallest really existent Martian.) However, in saying this, it must be understood that we are not actually predicating properties of anything: we aren't supposing that there is something which possesses the properties of being a Martian, really existing, and being no larger than any other Martian. (After all, we can safely suppose, we don't think that any Martians really exist.) In other words, we must be able to have the concept of, or entertain the idea of, a smallest really existing Martian without believing that there really are any smallest Martians. Indeed, more strongly, we must be able to entertain the concept of a smallest really existent Martian — and to recognise that the property of "really existing" is part of this concept — while nonetheless maintaining that there are no smallest existent Martians." http://plato.stanford.edu... C6. (a) There is no certainty that the universe came into existence at one point. Few scientists speculate on what existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a multidimensional universe existed before the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang was the result of the collision of "membranes" in other dimensions. (b) If everything has a first cause, then God must have been caused. However, if an exception is allowed for God, than it is simpler to allow the exception for the universe without the agency of God. C7. It is not true that moral commands require a commander. Praying mantis always eat their mates; it supposedly preserves the species by recycling protein. So are we to suppose that this is a commandment from God? No, it is a product of evolution. Humans are complex creatures, with instincts not only to serve themselves, but their families and societies. That is a product of evolution, and as such transcendental. However, conflicts among instincts and errors in understand lead to many odd behaviors, like human sacrifice, being deemed moral. Clearly there is no commander in command. N1. Pro is attempting to nitpick the details of evolution. However, nothing in his complaints leaves Pro's God as the only alternative. Scientific theories are replaced with new science, not gods. Einstein proved that Newton's Laws were inadequate to explain the workings of the universe. The consequence was not belief in mystical gods, but rather better scientific theory.