Proof to Evolution Found in the Two Promoting Conditions

[H2onE2]

Two primary conditions promote evolution, The first,, is a changing or altering environment, this forces adaptation and offers a platform or stage for a new species to... More» repopulate. The second force promoting evolution is a frequency of radiation, with a sufficient potency to damage the cell structure, code, finger print, without completely destroying the cell.

http://www.H2onE2.com, Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist

Best viewed
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/113157...ng_conditions/

And there is the low quality youtube


[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MwleSkIrn4Q&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MwleSkIrn4Q&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[lazserus]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're sorely wrong. Natural selection, the mechanisms of evolution, has no real [apparent] rhyme or reason. This has been seen in the last 3 major extinctions. Entire species wiped out returned. Some didn't, but new species filled the niches. We just mapped the genome...it will be at least another decade before we can associate it to evolution with any certainty. And then, I'm sure the model will still be way off. Evolution is not something easily, or even complexly, explains by science. Perhaps there are some things we may never know.

[H2onE2]

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're sorely wrong. Natural selection, the mechanisms of evolution, has no real [apparent] rhyme or reason. This has been seen in the last 3 major extinctions. Entire species wiped out returned. Some didn't, but new species filled the niches. We just mapped the genome...it will be at least another decade before we can associate it to evolution with any certainty. And then, I'm sure the model will still be way off. Evolution is not something easily, or even complexly, explains by science. Perhaps there are some things we may never know.

Evolution is a very simple process caused by exposure to UV wave energy. Mapping the natural selection over a timeline might be complex but what causes the biological changes is well known. The only things we will never know are things that government doesn't want to teach us and what I have pieced together in my book.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're sorely wrong. Natural selection, the mechanisms of evolution, has no real [apparent] rhyme or reason. This has been seen in the last 3 major extinctions. Entire species wiped out returned. Some didn't, but new species filled the niches. We just mapped the genome...it will be at least another decade before we can associate it to evolution with any certainty. And then, I'm sure the model will still be way off. Evolution is not something easily, or even complexly, explains by science. Perhaps there are some things we may never know.

Don't forget that there are various evolutionists that debate the importance of natural selection vs sexual selection, genetric drift, etc. Hell, there are a LOT of areas still needed to be worked out.

Of course, there are NO evolutionists who debate that natural selection is hugely important, and of course, the only "rhyme or reason" associated with natural selection is the age old idea of "the species that is able to successfully produce more offspring tends to 'outlive' the one that isn't." Or something to that effect. At least up until this point in time.

Originally Posted by H2onE2

Evolution is a very simple process caused by exposure to UV wave energy.

Well, it can't be only that, on the grounds that scientists have recently discovered that e-coli bacteria will release chemicals that cause them to mutate more whenever they are starved or when food is low, thus encouraging more random mutations, which will then encourage more adaptations, and hence, survival via natural selection.

Mapping the natural selection over a timeline might be complex but what causes the biological changes is well known.

I do believe that entropy must also play a part, as well as simply mutations caused by radiation. It's just a simple matter that genetic code won't always be copied exactly.

The only things we will never know are things that government doesn't want to teach us and what I have pieced together in my book.

Right. I'm gonna have to ask for some evidence that our professional evolutionary biologists are being denied pivital information about the process of evolution by the government.

[lazserus]

Originally Posted by Cartesiantheater

Of course, there are NO evolutionists who debate that natural selection is hugely important, and of course, the only "rhyme or reason" associated with natural selection is the age old idea of "the species that is able to successfully produce more offspring tends to 'outlive' the one that isn't." Or something to that effect. At least up until this point in time.

That is a primitive and uninformed idea, which really doesn't support natural selection, but supports evolution via sex. Many species throughout time have gone extinct because they produced more offspring. Naturally, it all depends on the type of species, what it consumes, how it mates, etc. For example, if you dumped 50 lions in a region of the African savanna today, that group would die off rather quickly. The predator/prey ratio has to be at equilibrium or both species will vanish.

Originally Posted by H2onE2

Evolution is a very simple process caused by exposure to UV wave energy.

Then how do you explain the paramount radiation of cyanobacteria in volcanic ocean vents or in ocean basins? There is no UV exposure at those depths. History has taught us that a very large number of species radiated and evolved in the ocean's depths where exposure to UV radiation is either minimal or absent.

Originally Posted by H2onE2

Mapping the natural selection over a timeline might be complex but what causes the biological changes is well known.

Tell that to a paleontologist. There are plenty of theories available to help explain possible reasons genetic mutation occurs, but no single one is the ultimate theory. The catalysts for biological changes are far from well known. Prolonged research in any extinction event in earth's history will blatantly deny this assertion. If you're referring to internal causes, then you're still only scratching the surface: genetic mutation. Mutation in germline cells is passed on to offspring, but that does not explain drastic and abstract physiological changes, which come from somatic cells...not transferred to offspring.

Originally Posted by Cartesiantheater

I do believe that entropy must also play a part, as well as simply mutations caused by radiation. It's just a simple matter that genetic code won't always be copied exactly.

Entropy does play a role in evolution, but the exact role is still not entirely understood. But remember, entropy plays a role in everything according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by H2onE2

The only things we will never know are things that government doesn't want to teach us and what I have pieced together in my book.

Wow, that's a sensational claim if I've ever heard one. [sarcasm]I'm sure it's a government conspiracy to lock all evolutionary information into a vault, guarded by ninjas.[/sarcasm] Government scientists are typically the rejects of the bunch, friend. Ever heard the phrase "Close enough for government work?"

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

That is a primitive and uninformed idea, which really doesn't support natural selection, but supports evolution via sex. Many species throughout time have gone extinct because they produced more offspring. Naturally, it all depends on the type of species, what it consumes, how it mates, etc. For example, if you dumped 50 lions in a region of the African savanna today, that group would die off rather quickly. The predator/prey ratio has to be at equilibrium or both species will vanish.

Well, ultimately I consider sexual selection to be a subset of natural selection, or an extension.

And by sexual selection, I meant Darwin's sexual selection, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection


In any case, evolution can be predicted, if the niches are known.

I'm sure it's a government conspiracy to lock all evolutionary information into a vault, guarded by ninjas.

Government scientists are typically the rejects of the bunch, friend. Ever heard the phrase "Close enough for government work?"

Wow. That is good work, lol.

[H2onE2]

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

That is a primitive and uninformed idea, which really doesn't support natural selection, but supports evolution via sex. Many species throughout time have gone extinct because they produced more offspring. Naturally, it all depends on the type of species, what it consumes, how it mates, etc. For example, if you dumped 50 lions in a region of the African savanna today, that group would die off rather quickly. The predator/prey ratio has to be at equilibrium or both species will vanish.


Then how do you explain the paramount radiation of cyanobacteria in volcanic ocean vents or in ocean basins? There is no UV exposure at those depths. History has taught us that a very large number of species radiated and evolved in the ocean's depths where exposure to UV radiation is either minimal or absent.

You found the other source of radiation which I did not mention because of the additional complexity. Radiation that falls into the UV wave length can occur from combustion. It is called electro magnetic radiation. I have posted on this topic and will provide the link here.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...owtopic=121581

The deep sea vents have there own radiation source and it is similar to UV in strength but provided from the combustion within earth's core.

Tell that to a paleontologist. There are plenty of theories available to help explain possible reasons genetic mutation occurs, but no single one is the ultimate theory. The catalysts for biological changes are far from well known. Prolonged research in any extinction event in earth's history will blatantly deny this assertion. If you're referring to internal causes, then you're still only scratching the surface: genetic mutation. Mutation in germline cells is passed on to offspring, but that does not explain drastic and abstract physiological changes, which come from somatic cells...not transferred to offspring.

I am looking at large scale feature and determining overall differences. Such as environments that have high evolution and environments with low evolution production. If you want to look at tiny cells outside of an environment, maybe in a test tube, you wont be able to make a dinosaur.

Entropy does play a role in evolution, but the exact role is still not entirely understood. But remember, entropy plays a role in everything according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Entropy is an environmental factor and does not stress, damage or alter the code.

Wow, that's a sensational claim if I've ever heard one. [sarcasm]I'm sure it's a government conspiracy to lock all evolutionary information into a vault, guarded by ninjas.[/sarcasm] Government scientists are typically the rejects of the bunch, friend. Ever heard the phrase "Close enough for government work?"

You would really be surprised how many Christians have enrolled into hard core science classes like, geology, biology. I had several in my class, one of the girls couldn't handle the truth, sat on a rock and cried and was gone the next day. I would say that Christians have flooded the science departments. They are well funded and always get the best positions to block simple interpretations by a professional that does not agree with their ideology.

[H2onE2]

Originally Posted by Cartesiantheater

Well, ultimately I consider sexual selection to be a subset of natural selection, or an extension.

And by sexual selection, I meant Darwin's sexual selection, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection


In any case, evolution can be predicted, if the niches are known.




Wow. That is good work, lol.

I place sexual selection into an environmental factor because it does not have an energy force in the UV range that can damage or alter the DNA code. So it would be a secondary influence.

[H2onE2]

I am making another video on Exodus and I can only check these posts about once a week until I am done.

[lazserus]

Originally Posted by H2onE2

You found the other source of radiation which I did not mention because of the additional complexity. Radiation that falls into the UV wave length can occur from combustion. It is called electro magnetic radiation. I have posted on this topic and will provide the link here.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...owtopic=121581

The deep sea vents have there own radiation source and it is similar to UV in strength but provided from the combustion within earth's core.

When I use the word "radiation," I don't mean short wavelength light. Radiation in evolutionary terms means the spread and prolification of a species within a segmented geologic period. Electro magnetic radiation is a broad term that describes all forms of energy. UV waves are a form of electro magnetic radiation at certain frequencies. Light, radio waves, microwaves, and cosmic rays are all types of electro magnetic radiation. Also, volcanism does not produce radiation. An entry-level geology course would clue you into that. Sub-sea volcanism causes the release of heat and chemicals, but not electro magnet radiation.

Originally Posted by H2onE2

I am looking at large scale feature and determining overall differences. Such as environments that have high evolution and environments with low evolution production. If you want to look at tiny cells outside of an environment, maybe in a test tube, you wont be able to make a dinosaur.

If you can't look at the "test tube," you can't look at environmental pictures in the way you describe them. You can't look at large-scale evolution in regards to environment and come up with a definitive answer to evolutionary causality. Environments contribute heavily on extinctions and evolution, but they certainly aren't the ultimate answer. When looking at large-scale evolution, the tiny pieces don't fit together. This is why modern biological evolutionists still aren't sure how things work. When looking at the bigger picture, there are too many variables involved to call one truth.

[H2onE2]

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

When I use the word "radiation," I don't mean short wavelength light. Radiation in evolutionary terms means the spread and prolification of a species within a segmented geologic period. Electro magnetic radiation is a broad term that describes all forms of energy. UV waves are a form of electro magnetic radiation at certain frequencies. Light, radio waves, microwaves, and cosmic rays are all types of electro magnetic radiation. Also, volcanism does not produce radiation. An entry-level geology course would clue you into that. Sub-sea volcanism causes the release of heat and chemicals, but not electro magnet radiation.

UV is the light wave frequency. It has the greatest exposure to biological life. Radiation should only be used to describe an energy force of electrons emitting from a source. To use the term radiation as a proliferation of species is just wrong.

I do condense and highlight the most impotent aspects when I make these 10 minute videos. So the truth is only 99.9% of evolution and none evolution "deep sea fish" involves the UV range of light omitted by the sun. All radiation that has the power to damage the cell structure without completely destroying the cell can promote evolution.

Some additional sources of radiation that can damage the cell and promote evolution can include natural or even manmade. A natural source can be Radon, fire and natural earth materials such as Radium which is extremely radioactive. Radium 226 Ra has electrons that are omitted at a frequency able to damage the cell structure.


Man made sources can be cell phones, televisions, combustion engines, electrical appliances or even cigarette smoking.

Originally Posted by Ta'Nahir

If you can't look at the "test tube," you can't look at environmental pictures in the way you describe them. You can't look at large-scale evolution in regards to environment and come up with a definitive answer to evolutionary causality. Environments contribute heavily on extinctions and evolution, but they certainly aren't the ultimate answer. When looking at large-scale evolution, the tiny pieces don't fit together. This is why modern biological evolutionists still aren't sure how things work. When looking at the bigger picture, there are too many variables involved to call one truth.

If evolutionary biologist came up with the simple explanation of evolution why would they need a job or grant money to study it? If Nasa uncovered that they completely understand the universe, what would they study? How about this, if medicine completely cured a disease, do you think they would tell the public? No, No and No. only someone that is not connected financially to these bureaucracies will ever uncover the truth. Believe what you must, but know all their dirty little secrets.

[dave-0]

It's almost weird the way things happen, when the theory of evolution was first put forth in the mid 1800s, but laws of thermodynamics were substantiated much later.

I tend to put more credence in mathematics, as mathematical arguments tend to be hard to refute. Work on statistical thermodynamics developed in the early 1900s, and it is where folks like Arrhenius, Einstein and Gibbs come in. Not to be too technical, but Gibbs developed the concept of the Free Energy in a system where G= H + TS, which ultimately is measured by δG = δH-TδS. S, or 'delta' S is the measure of entropy, which always must be positive (that is, entropy is increasing). This means that randomness increases; the second law of thermodynamics must be upheld.

To imply that genetics and cellular constructions gets more complex as a result of evolution means that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being disobeyed. Evolution is usually touted as something that occurs 'naturally' or through random events, but it is clear (to me anyway) that the only way evolution could work is if the system is acted upon by an external source to cause change. You can call it nature, I call it God. Since the external force had to exist before nature, then it can really only be something called God, since it predates everything else.

I have also found that most touters of evolution have more faith than I do, because they really need it to be true in order to continue denying God's existence. Consider their plight vs theirs. If I am right, and God created man however he did, that means we are a creation and have a creator, implying worship. Most of the evolutionists would be in trouble if God were to judge. If they are right, we have all evolved from nothing and when we die we disappear into nothingness; as a result I have nothing to lose, the same as the evolutionists.

[H2onE2]

God only dates to the creation of human superstition, fear and not understanding their environment.

I have been waiting on a human voice track but it hasn't showed up yet. I also dumbed down the video to reach a larger population.

Some how I got the idea that is would be funny to make a video that is not funny, but it turns out to still be not funny.

Billy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW-SX9Ab4ls

Note: this is just a draft video

[werner]

perhaps you dumbed it down so much I'm lost as to what you're saying.
Devolution (loss or corruption of information) seems evident but evolution (information gain) does not.

[H2onE2]

Originally Posted by werner

perhaps you dumbed it down so much I'm lost as to what you're saying.
Devolution (loss or corruption of information) seems evident but evolution (information gain) does not.

Proof to Evolution Found in the Two Promoting Conditions

Refers to biological change natural and un-natural. Some religious people don't wont to believe in biological evolution. I can't move mountains or change primitive orthodox thinking.

[Cartesiantheater]

Originally Posted by dave-0

It's almost weird the way things happen, when the theory of evolution was first put forth in the mid 1800s, but laws of thermodynamics were substantiated much later.

I tend to put more credence in mathematics, as mathematical arguments tend to be hard to refute. Work on statistical thermodynamics developed in the early 1900s, and it is where folks like Arrhenius, Einstein and Gibbs come in. Not to be too technical, but Gibbs developed the concept of the Free Energy in a system where G= H + TS, which ultimately is measured by δG = δH-TδS. S, or 'delta' S is the measure of entropy, which always must be positive (that is, entropy is increasing). This means that randomness increases; the second law of thermodynamics must be upheld.

According to you it is impossible for ice cubes to form in a refrigerator...

To imply that genetics and cellular constructions gets more complex as a result of evolution means that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being disobeyed.

No, no it doesn't. Ice cubes, man... ice cubes...

Evolution is usually touted as something that occurs 'naturally' or through random events, but it is clear (to me anyway) that the only way evolution could work is if the system is acted upon by an external source to cause change. You can call it nature, I call it God. Since the external force had to exist before nature, then it can really only be something called God, since it predates everything else.

Your premise is flawed, thus your conclusion is also flawed.

I have also found that most touters of evolution have more faith than I do, because they really need it to be true in order to continue denying God's existence.

Why should an atheist require evolution to be true? Even if it isn't, there is no logical reason to assume that the only two possibilities are evolution by natural selection OR special creation by a god. Further, many of the "touters" of evolution are theists, including one of its strongest defenders, Ken Miller.


Now, since you know about math, you're "more comfortable" discussing matters in math, and you aren't just some creationist kid who copied and pasted the Gibbs free energy formula, why don't you do a math problem for me?

What is the curl of


F = (x^2 - y)i + 4zj + x^2k


I'll even give you a hint: curl F = ▼ X F



Or to anyone else who has the same (erroneous) opinion about entropy and evolution.


Maybe you do know a little about math, maybe you don't. Either way, you're mistaken about entropy and its relationship to evolution. If you were right, it'd be impossible for icicles to form in a refrigerator.

Consider their plight vs theirs. If I am right, and God created man however he did, that means we are a creation and have a creator, implying worship. Most of the evolutionists would be in trouble if God were to judge. If they are right, we have all evolved from nothing and when we die we disappear into nothingness; as a result I have nothing to lose, the same as the evolutionists.

So what? Science isn't about the meaning of life. It's about finding out how things work. Go to the philosophy or religion section if you want to find the meaning of life.

[Cartesiantheater]

God, I get tired of phonies like dave-o and werner... :headdesks:

Who the hell do you think you're going to fool? We've got several people with actually ACCREDITED degrees in science (note that Dr. Dino does NOT have an accredited degree...). Keep your pseudo scientific garbage to yourself...

[H2onE2]

Hi,

Just checking all my posts to make sure I have answered everything.

billy

Have you checked out my new video, which is not on ice cubs in a refrigerator or dumb math.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLwZM4XaGX8
Exodus Uncovered as a Climatic Switch NEW VIDEO FROM WWW.H2ONE2.COM

H2onE2, Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion,

Emancipates, Exodus, as a survival manifesto. This is an allegory, placed out of timed historical reference, to hide, a 10,000 year old, account of survival, during the great flood, specifically, transition from glacial winter to global summer. Documents the Plight, the journey and dangers, experienced at a climate collapse, termed, Glacial Respiration,. Uncovering environmental change from Exodus, requires the assumption that the great flood of Noah, creation and Moses parting of the Red Sea are, the same event. Different stories, absorbed by the Jews, adopted, and assimilated into their scripture.