Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
Originally Posted by Pacerlive
I said in relationship to the Toe not necessarily to the second law. To the point of the second law what you said completely makes sense. Its a well argued point that has been regurgitated by many.
Now to the point of probability I would assume what I have stated up above should make sense to most educated people. From the start of the possibility of abiogenesis (start of life) on earth to the time we know we had life it would have been a shorter time than going from unicellular life to multicellular forms. So less time for ambiogenesis to occur on earth than multicellular life?
Does that sound logical to you and if it does please explain it to me.
Now I realize that the Earth had gone through some rough conditions but I would have predicted as a scientist that mutagenesis in basic lifeforms would have occured at a faster rate and in more organisms than what did.
Did evolution have a hiccup?
Do you think that argues for Toe?
Do you think its interesting and is more advantegous to us as posters to consider than these ID arguments against evolution that you are presenting?
In your opening post you said the pursuit of truth was the main goal here or something to that degree and please understand that my intention is not to hijack your thread. Its quite the opposite but these are questions that I have come up with just for funsies and wonder what might the possible answers be because in my mind it doesn't add up.
I don't think that the change from unicellular to multicellular taking longer than abiogenesis means anything for the theory of evolution. abiogenesis is not evolution. They are not governed by the same process.
I still don't understand why you think it should have gone faster.
Originally Posted by MrPoon
man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.