How do you reconcile the theory of evolution with the law of thermo-dynamics
- Thread starter cana333
- Start date
- Status
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Can somebody please find a physicist or physics textbook that states that evolutionary thoery "breaks the second law of thermodynamics".
Can somebody please find a scientific, non-creationists, source to back that claim up?
Can somebody please find a scientific, non-creationists, source to back that claim up?
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Smidlee said:
Then how do you explain the existance of the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution? How about the Journal of Molecular Evolution? How do explain that the University of Princeton has scientists who specialize in the study of evolution employed in their Department of Molecular Biology?
Here is a link to the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, you can aquire copies in pdf form of the papers published in this journal. Perhaps you would take me up the the challenge toreview some articles yourselfl? You could even pick them out yourself based on what you see in the abstracts (you need to be registered to see the entire article). I would be happy to have you point out the freqency of words like "presumably, likely, probably, perhaps, might have, could have, possibly, apparently," in articles of your own choosing. You can read the absracts without registering, but registration is free and you will be able to download entire articles.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
P.S I want to add that there many scientist who doesn't even deal with evolution. Behe made the case that most papers about molecular biology has very little to evolution (seldom mention). Of those papars that I've read does deal with evolution you will find a lot of words like; presumably, likely, probably, perhaps, might have, could have, possibly, apparently, has (some knid of animal) like features,etc so in many ways the scientist are honest enough to add these words to show their views from the actually facts.
I've read a lot of theology over the years.
Oftentimes they use words and phrases like:
"God said", "it is obvious", "it is plainly written", "everyone agrees", "The Bible clearly teaches", "It must be true that"
and you know, i can pick up 3 theology books and get 3 different opinions on almost any topic. And they all use the same words that denote:
certainity, without a doubt, absolutely, must be.
and they all say something different.
You'd think that they would use terms like this quote points out to differentiate between their opinion or their interpretation and what is written in the Scriptures.
OTOH there is remarkable unity across languages, cultures, countries, classes, etc on the elements of the different sciences, in fact, they can agree on lots of little things, where theologians can't seem to agree on even the big things.
so which do you prefer?
certainty with great divisiveness
or tentativeness with extraordinary unity?
I've read a lot of theology over the years.
Oftentimes they use words and phrases like:
"God said", "it is obvious", "it is plainly written", "everyone agrees", "The Bible clearly teaches", "It must be true that"
and you know, i can pick up 3 theology books and get 3 different opinions on almost any topic. And they all use the same words that denote:
certainity, without a doubt, absolutely, must be.
and they all say something different.
You'd think that they would use terms like this quote points out to differentiate between their opinion or their interpretation and what is written in the Scriptures.
OTOH there is remarkable unity across languages, cultures, countries, classes, etc on the elements of the different sciences, in fact, they can agree on lots of little things, where theologians can't seem to agree on even the big things.
so which do you prefer?
certainty with great divisiveness
or tentativeness with extraordinary unity?
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Here is a listing of the top 12 articles downloaded from the Journal of Molecular Biology (no mention of evolution in the title jut to be fair) from July to Sept 2004
As you can see, two of the top 12 articles (roughly 17%) deal specifically with evolution. Not exactly rare is it?
As you can see, two of the top 12 articles (roughly 17%) deal specifically with evolution. Not exactly rare is it?
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Smildee said
Could you please provide the titles of these papers? I would like to read them myself.
I randomly selected an article that delt with evolution and molecular biology. In this case, the article is called The evolutionary origins and catalytic importance of conserved electrostatic networks within TIM-barrel proteins. Published by the Journal of Protein Science.
The full version is online, available without registration at the above link..
I recorded the number of occurances of words like "presumably, likely, probably, perhaps, might have, could have, possibly, apparently, has (some knid of animal) like features," as Mr. Smildee stated.
Here is what I found:
presumably,
Both instances of the occurance of the word presumably have nothing to do with evolution per say. There is some ambiguity regarding the exact role of specific chemicals in certain portions of biochemical pathways. It is totally irrelavent if the author or ready accepts evolution or not in these two cases.
likely (and unlikely)
Again the two occurances of the word likely hardly relate to the validity of evoluionary theory at all. They are used in terms of the chemistry specifically.
probably,
no occurances
perhaps,
no occurances
might have,
could have,
no occurances
possibly,
no occurances
apparently
no occurances
has features (or any variation thereof)
no occurances
It would appear that Mr. Smildee's assertion is quite unfounded in at least this case. The authors of this paper don't seem to have any ambivalence towards the the authenticity of evolution. Perhaps one could argue that the understanding of basic biochemistry is not fully understood (hence the need for research in that area).
Could you please provide the titles of these papers? I would like to read them myself.
I randomly selected an article that delt with evolution and molecular biology. In this case, the article is called The evolutionary origins and catalytic importance of conserved electrostatic networks within TIM-barrel proteins. Published by the Journal of Protein Science.
The full version is online, available without registration at the above link..
I recorded the number of occurances of words like "presumably, likely, probably, perhaps, might have, could have, possibly, apparently, has (some knid of animal) like features," as Mr. Smildee stated.
Here is what I found:
presumably,
Both instances of the occurance of the word presumably have nothing to do with evolution per say. There is some ambiguity regarding the exact role of specific chemicals in certain portions of biochemical pathways. It is totally irrelavent if the author or ready accepts evolution or not in these two cases.
likely (and unlikely)
Again the two occurances of the word likely hardly relate to the validity of evoluionary theory at all. They are used in terms of the chemistry specifically.
probably,
no occurances
perhaps,
no occurances
might have,
could have,
no occurances
possibly,
no occurances
apparently
no occurances
has features (or any variation thereof)
no occurances
It would appear that Mr. Smildee's assertion is quite unfounded in at least this case. The authors of this paper don't seem to have any ambivalence towards the the authenticity of evolution. Perhaps one could argue that the understanding of basic biochemistry is not fully understood (hence the need for research in that area).
Upvote
0
This thread makes me sad. How come no Creationists ever correct their members when it comes to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? It would sure make their side seem more science aware.
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Here is an example of another article that I found through the previous paper.
Group II introns as phylogenetic tools: structure, function, and evolutionary constraints, published by the American Journal of Botany.
Again, full version available at the link without registration.
recorded the number of occurances of words like "presumably, likely, probably, perhaps, might have, could have, possibly, apparently, has (some knid of animal) like features," that should show that the ideas presented are riddled with uncertainty in regards to evoultion.
presumably,
Since it IS research, and research DOES venture into the unkown it is not suprising that they don't exactly know everything there is to know about selective pressure on this particular gene that they studied. Nothing earth shattering there, afterall science does not deal in absolutes.
likely (and unlikely)
Well, well well. Scientists apparantly admitting that they don't know everything. Tsk tsk. Maybe whats why it's called RESEARCH. Protein folding is being actively studied around the world preciesely because it is not fully understood (besides that has little bearing on evolutionary theory).
Perhpas Mr. Smildee could explain to me how the use of the word "likely " is inappropriate in a research paper.
probably,
And the occurance of the word probably is bad why exactly? Some uncertainty in the area in which research is taking place maybe? Well, if it was fully understood it would not be under investigation would it.
perhaps,
The authors are merely stating that the example given is arguably the best example available .
Oh dear, more examples of research probing into the unkown. Hardly invalidates the theory of evolution though.
might have,
no occurances
could have,
no occurances
possibly,
The authors are merely pointing out that there is little information available to counter a point they are making.
apparently,
no occurances
has (some knid of animal [plant in this case]) like features
no occurances
I am still at a loss to understand what is wrong with using some of these words in the first place. I am even more confused as to how the occurance of words indicating a degree of uncertainty in inappropriate in research.
If you were exploring a cave and felt a breeze of fresh air and saw a little bit of light what would be wrong with saying "there is probably an opening to the oustide there" or "that is likely a good way to get out of this place"?
Group II introns as phylogenetic tools: structure, function, and evolutionary constraints, published by the American Journal of Botany.
Again, full version available at the link without registration.
recorded the number of occurances of words like "presumably, likely, probably, perhaps, might have, could have, possibly, apparently, has (some knid of animal) like features," that should show that the ideas presented are riddled with uncertainty in regards to evoultion.
presumably,
Since it IS research, and research DOES venture into the unkown it is not suprising that they don't exactly know everything there is to know about selective pressure on this particular gene that they studied. Nothing earth shattering there, afterall science does not deal in absolutes.
likely (and unlikely)
Well, well well. Scientists apparantly admitting that they don't know everything. Tsk tsk. Maybe whats why it's called RESEARCH. Protein folding is being actively studied around the world preciesely because it is not fully understood (besides that has little bearing on evolutionary theory).
Perhpas Mr. Smildee could explain to me how the use of the word "likely " is inappropriate in a research paper.
probably,
And the occurance of the word probably is bad why exactly? Some uncertainty in the area in which research is taking place maybe? Well, if it was fully understood it would not be under investigation would it.
perhaps,
The authors are merely stating that the example given is arguably the best example available .
Oh dear, more examples of research probing into the unkown. Hardly invalidates the theory of evolution though.
might have,
no occurances
could have,
no occurances
possibly,
The authors are merely pointing out that there is little information available to counter a point they are making.
apparently,
no occurances
has (some knid of animal [plant in this case]) like features
no occurances
I am still at a loss to understand what is wrong with using some of these words in the first place. I am even more confused as to how the occurance of words indicating a degree of uncertainty in inappropriate in research.
If you were exploring a cave and felt a breeze of fresh air and saw a little bit of light what would be wrong with saying "there is probably an opening to the oustide there" or "that is likely a good way to get out of this place"?
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
I managed to look up a few articles in various engineering research journals (nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or biology) and was able to find quite a number of occurances of words like probably, likely, possibly, etc. in any paper I found.
Does that mean that engineering is a fraud? I better not drive over that bridge, it could be a sham !
Does that mean that engineering is a fraud? I better not drive over that bridge, it could be a sham !
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Late_Cretaceous said:
Lol. I surely don't see these words as bad words as this shows the scientist being honest which is my whole point. So I actually respect those (even Darwinist) who uses them.
Some parts of evolution isn't in question which is why I prefer ,most of the time, using Darwinism instead.
Upvote
0
One of the points I continue to see come up is what was once thought to be "junk" DNA isn't junk after all.
Upvote
0
Smidlee said:
Can you point us to the research article that states this?
What do you think the definition of 'junk' DNA is?
How do they determine that it is or is not 'junk' DNA?
Surely when you see this point brought up, these questions are answered, right?
Of course, even if what you state is true and you understand what you are saying, it doesn't impact the theory of evolution at all.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
Smidlee said:
junk is an unfortunate turn of phrase. when you see it in a book, just substitute "dna for which we don't know a function", and you will be ok.
but a lot of it will turn out to be currently junk, long repeats, retroviral inserts etc., so what?
Upvote
0
Smidlee said:
Funny that the same people whom you think call it "junk" DNA are also the same people that research it and find what functions it may have.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
steen
Lie Detector
Ah, so instead of arguing against the actual science, you are trying to argue against the hypothesis proposed 150 years ago, is that what you are saying? What would be the purpose of this? Trying to have an argument so you feel better about your religion? When you KNOW that your argument is not valid in today's science? Isn't that paradoxical?Smidlee said:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
