Well Taxed to death you got me woken up again. I will attempt to answer your question abotu thermodynamics. First let me point out that entropy is not energy, you can create entropy (but not energy). The definition that I pull from my chemistry book is this: (2nd law) "the total entropy of a system and its surroundings always increases for a spontaneous process." (entropy) "is a thermodynamic quantity that is a measure of the randomness or disorder in a system."
Your third law isn't the third law. The third law is that all things become a crystalline structure at absolute zero. (this really has nothing to do with evolution)
Spontaneous generation is possible. Bacteria split apart (by themselves) all the time I have actually seen this. a crab can grow a new leg, plants grow new limbs etc. Now while this isn't exactly spontaneous generation as it does require energy to happen, things can grow from things that don't appear to be. A few chemicals mixed together can create a very primitive organism. These elements and compounds were around at the right time for life to begin. Mixing corn starch with water will create something quite different form what a person might think that they will get.
Now lets discuss the "onward and upward machine" that you ask for me to describe. That machine is natural selection. Organisms that fail to adapt or more accurately reproduce die. Extinctions are the rule on earth, everything dies eventually. Darwin described the finches in the Galapagos that had many different beak styles on different islands to eat the more prodominent food source. Human beings are naturally selective, take the sickle cell anemia argument that you discuss. The people with sickle cell anemia live longer in malarial zones then do people wihtout it. They were able to survive better and hence why many people from that area have it. Arguing why it still exists is explained by that fact that wiht modern medicine people cna still survive and reproduce. Now for the big one the net loss of genetic material. There is no net loss of material as it the DNA simply shifts and forms different combinations. Look at a slot machine. You pull a lever and different combinations come out giving you a different result. the machine doesn't lose any material, nor does it gain any. (we can gain material and survive also Downs syndrome being an example) There are 64 combinations of the code (AGA, TGA, ATA, CTA etc) Putting all these codes together gives one a large (nearly infinite amount) of combos, than add that to the combinations of genes, chromosones, etc and it all gets really big. As for the net loss of genetic information, most lies dormant as the dominant genes take over or that the combinations change that the genes change. Anyway I haven't done really well at explaining genetics to the forum so I'll stop now. I will try to explain things a bit better tomorrow when I'm not so tired. As for now the argument of DNA and genetics can really take the evolution idea a long way. Here are the reasons: It can be seen physically today One can see the similarities between all speicies It has been proven (unless we all are a figment of someone's imagination)
Now I will give a bit mroe to teh creationists here. DNA is such a beautiful and nearly perfect mechanism for transfering data that I really think something created it (or at least the blueprint) As for the time and place that it all started I will heatedly debate that. However, my beleif is that the supreme being (whoever or whatever it is) started the process and let it go. Eventually seeing what would happen (or knowing in the plan that it would get to us) DNA maybe a bible that we all can beleive in as it does tell teh story of all that has past and what all there could be. Now I will shut up and go to bed.
Well I couldn't stay in bed cause I realized I made a few errors. One Spontaneous generation is impossible. Sponatneous processes are possible. Two: the third law that you quote may be true in different books. According to the chem book I have the third law is the law of absolute zero. (sources could have different laws) Jim
