First, I didn't say closed to energy and obviously such closure isn't even
implied. Obviously, I'm talking about an independent system, not an
isolated
system. How about "closed to outside information and organization."
> Secondly, evolution is actually defined as the change in the frequency of
> one or more genes within a population of organisms.
Secondly, as no one is disputing that genes in a population change in
frequency, your
definition is irrelevant.
> Read any textbook by
> Douglas Futuyma for the empirical evidence of this that you seek.
>
> No doubt you will maintain that only macroevolution is truely evolution in
> the sense you mean it. There too Futuyma can provide the
> empirical evidence you seek.
As I assert Evolution (the indefinite increase of complexity in a system
open
only to energy -- such as ameba-to-man) is impossible, I'm confident that
none
of Futuyma's books contain empirical examples.
I've offered this challenge for years; no one has ever met the challenge.
If you
Evolutionists can't even show that evolution is possible, why are we wasting
all this
time debating weak circumstantial evidence that it accounts for the
complexity of
modern life?