Teach me why I should believe in evolution.

[Sojourner<><]

I would reccomend picking up a good book that lists the foundational findings and science behind the ToE... An easy to read book would be Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything...

I would then read a good book about evolution from a Christian perspective... John Haught is in depth but Brian McLaren has a good one called The Story We Find Ourselves In that is very good...

Amazon on that one (I highly recommend it): http://www.amazon.com/Story-Find-Ourselves-Adventures-Christian/dp/0787963879/sr=8-1/qid=1157026505/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8920261-9271068?ie=UTF8

Thanks for the tip. Would you mind providing a brief summary in your own words about significance of these books?

IMO, the best evidence for the ToE is collective not individual. The radiological, geological, and cosmological evidence for a very old earth and universe is overwhelming. The fossil evidence shows variance and transition over time... Once you start putting two and two together, you will see for yourself where the evidence points...

What are the most influential characteristics of this collective that should lead someone to a rational conclusion in favor of TofE?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Well, if you ask me, I don't think your approach will work. You already do have a certain mindset about how TEs and the TofE work. It's inevitable. What we need to do is to deconstruct whatever is wrong in that mindset and replace it with what is accurate.

But if you really want to stick to the evidence, discuss the points rmswilliams has raised. They are good places to start.

Just think of me as a journalist. I'll try to remain as objective as possible and if I step out of line feel free to point it out to me.

 

[Sojourner<><]

The principle mechanisms of evolution are mutation and natural selection. Some other important mechanisms are sexual selection and genetic drift. Also gene flow. All of the latter are various means of selection.

Mutation (a change in the DNA) is the source of variation. The other mechanisms determine which variations will survive and come to be normal for the species.

If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

 

[notto]

If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

None of the mechanisms used by the the theory of evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Whoever told you that has provided you with incorrect information.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a law of physics that deals with the relationship between heat, work, and energy - thus the name thermodynamics. It is a mathematical relationship. If anybody says that something violates the law, they would need to provide the following in order to show that it is true

1) The name of a specific physical mechansism - i.e. a chemical reaction, physical mechansims, atomic reaction, etc that supposedly violates this law - evolution is not a physical mechanism, it is a outcome of physical mechanisms.

2) Show expermimentally work output by the mechansism in an isolated envoronment.

2) Proper units and math and data (based on observation and measurements of energy and heat) that show the violation.

Until this is done, whatever is being discussed, isn't the second law of thermodynamics.

If it was, an acorn growing into an oak tree would violate the second law of thermodyanmics.

We have directly observed all of the mechansims of evolution acting right before our eyes. If any of those mechanisms violated the 2nd law, all it would show us is that the 2nd law was wrong.

Your comment is based on a bad source. You need to probably forget everything you ever learned about evolutoin from this source - it is most likely wrong and they are purposely trying to deceieve you to believe it is something it is not.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

evolution has NO direction.
not from simple to complex
not from bad to good
not from lower to higher
not from pond scum to man

it is an exploration of genetic potential space.
a random walk down the street, a drunkard's stagger to the gutter etc.

2LOT is about a closed system.
the earth, the biota of the earth is not a closed system.

the sun adds energy to create most of the living things we see around us. a few oddballs like the deep sea smoker communities live off the (usually) energy stored in sulfur bonds, and then off each other.

the point is that the earth alone is not a closed system.

 

[random_guy]

If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Could you explain how much you know about thermodynamics? From this statement, it seems like you understand the Creationist version, not the scientific version. If what you said was true (simple->complex violates the 2nd Law) why does a seed growing into a tree not violate the 2nd Law? I suggest carefully listen to what rmwilliamsll and notto says, because if you think that nearly every scientist somehow missed the that evolution violates the 2nd Law, but Creationists with no physics education can see it, there's something clearly wrong.

 

[Sojourner<><]

evolution has NO direction.
not from simple to complex
not from bad to good
not from lower to higher
not from pond scum to man

it is an exploration of genetic potential space.
a random walk down the street, a drunkard's stagger to the gutter etc.

As I have grown up in this information-soaked culture, I have perceived (however correctly or incorrectly) that the view of TofE held by the vast majority of secular sources of information (i.e. public schools, scientific journals, educational television and radio, etc.) is that it is the answer to the question of the origins of the species that is most likely to be correct. How is it that you have arrived at the conclusion that the TofE does not even approach the original question?

2LOT is about a closed system.
the earth, the biota of the earth is not a closed system.

the sun adds energy to create most of the living things we see around us. a few oddballs like the deep sea smoker communities live off the (usually) energy stored in sulfur bonds, and then off each other.

the point is that the earth alone is not a closed system.

Doesn't the concept of self-organization imply an isolated source of complexity? And if so why is it that the natural axiom described by 2LOT does not apply to the differences between sources of complexity?

 

[Mallon]

I would love to hear the creationist explanation of the formation of snowflakes. They've tried, evidently, but really botched it up:
http://www.icr.org/article/266/

However, we have shown that ice crystals only grow when an outside agent is driving the process against the natural decay process described by the second law of thermodynamics.

And if creationists think the opposite is true of evolution, then they are seriously misleading themselves. Snowflakes, like all life on earth, are not closed systems.

However, random processes in the physical world always move in the direction of greater total disorder, according to the second law of thermodynamics. If simple physical processes like the mixing of gases always becomes more disorderly, why should complex biological processes naturally become more orderly?

Ummm... because they are being acted upon by natural selection!!! It's one of the most basic principles of biology, yet ICR continually fails to grasp it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

is that it is the answer to the question of the origins of the species that is most likely to be correct. How is it that you have arrived at the conclusion that the TofE does not even approach the original question?


i'm stating that the TofE is not DIRECTIONAL, not that it didn't produce what living things you see around you. given pond scum the creation of human beings was neither directional nor inevitable.

Doesn't the concept of self-organization imply an isolated source of complexity? And if so why is it that the natural axiom described by 2LOT does not apply to the differences between sources of complexity?

i hope someone can answer this, my only reading in the field is Stuart Kauffman, Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. i realize that it is a big and rapidly evolving field so i hope someone here works or studies it to answer you directly.

 

[Im_A]

It's back to school time and I'm hungry for knowledge, which means I'm ready to ask lots of questions. So, if you are a Christian and you think you can convince me to believe in evolution, here's your chance. I will limit myself to aking questions only and I will not produce any evidence to support my own views if you follow 2 rules: 1)You should answer my questions using your own understanding (if you reference the conclusions of a scientific study you must be able to explain them) 2)You shouldn't answer my questions using the opinions of anyone else.

Up to the challenge? I hope so.

Here's my first question: Why should I believe in evolution?

i won't try to convince you of believeing in evolution but i'll give you things to think about that may either convince you to believe in it, or it won't and just give you more reason to believe whatever you believe now.

do you believe scientific findings are more important than theological suppositions?

do you believe mankind should keep away from scientific discoveries that may lead to maybe different conclusions on existence, and keep to the ancient mythological tales of explanations of existence?

how do you view the scriptures? literal/inerrant or metaphorical/narrative?

i'm just asking these questions because i don't think there's any point to debate findings of science when it comes to wanting to believe in theistic evolution. the theistic part, becomes more important to defend than it does the scientific parts. science is what it is. the findings are what they are. sure one can maybe debate about how they were found, the testing and such, but just because several things have been proven as bunk, the doesn't disprove anything about evolution.

the theological issues thus, in my opinion, become the most pivatol part for accepting evolution. cause if you are to accept evolution, you will have let go assumptions that you may or may not have about Christianity, Judaism, the scripture.

i would like to hope by you asking people to "convince" you or lead you to accepting evolution, you are more than willing to sit down and critically and objectively look at your own faith before you come to a conclusion of evolution because if you don't, you may be in danger of only coming to biased conclusions that show you nothing at all but a work of an apologetic trying to defend their beliefs against sound criticism.

God Bless you! <><

 

[gluadys]

What sort of impact have these findings had on the scientific community?

Could you be more specific. Several people have mentioned a number of different findings. Which ones are you asking about?

 

[gluadys]

If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

They haven't. They work within the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Particularly about how it applies to open systems like the earth.

 

[Rin4Christ]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sojourner<><
If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?


As mentioned, this is a comon but not very useful argument by creationists against evolution science. In a closed system things tend toward disorder (increased entropy). If you put a system in a box and don't allow any energy in or out (which is impossible) then the system would tend to break down. any working machines would eventually slow and stop, any living organism would eventually die for lack of resources to live and reproduce. The earth is not a closed system. We have a continual source of energy from the sun and alot of chemical resources on the earth that to this day still are not taped by living systems. because we are not a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics can not be used to say that life on earth should fall into disorder.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The word "should" in the OP is problematic.

should is a moral imperative, an ethical ought to be.
why would understanding a particular scientific theory be a moral imperative?
can it even try to be an ethical ought to be?

you can study and understand the theory if you desire, the theory doesn't come with a label "required belief for being human" or "necessary to understand". you can be, and apparently most human beings on earth are, relatively unaware of the science behind the theory.

so what? you don't have to know anything under your hood to drive your car. nor to you have to understand anything about your body in order to live with it.

i really don't like that "should", the more i see it, the less i think it is appropriate. i don't really care whether you or anyone else studies the theory, gets it, understands it or whatever. i make no moral demands on you, nor does the theory, it just kind of sits there, pretty much the same thing i do.

 

[notto]

Doesn't the concept of self-organization imply an isolated source of complexity? And if so why is it that the natural axiom described by 2LOT does not apply to the differences between sources of complexity?

What natural axiom is that? Don't forget to show your units.

You seem to be under a rather strange perception of what hte 2nd law of thermodynamics really is.

Can you describe it for us mathematically? If not, again, I would encourage you to abandon the source you are getting your information from. It is feeding you bad information that is leading you away from understanding evolution and thermodynamics instead of toward it.

Evolution isnt' 'self organizing'. It is the outcome of observed mechansisms that we see and observe everyday. What specific mechanism do you think violates the 2nd law? If you can't name an actual physical mechanism, then you are not talking about the 2nd law (and neither is your source).

 

[Sojourner<><]

What natural axiom is that? Don't forget to show your units.

You seem to be under a rather strange perception of what hte 2nd law of thermodynamics really is.

Can you describe it for us mathematically? If not, again, I would encourage you to abandon the source you are getting your information from. It is feeding you bad information that is leading you away from understanding evolution and thermodynamics instead of toward it.

Evolution isnt' 'self organizing'. It is the outcome of observed mechansisms that we see and observe everyday. What specific mechanism do you think violates the 2nd law? If you can't name an actual physical mechanism, then you are not talking about the 2nd law (and neither is your source).

The axiom or principle outlined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the rule that heat cannot pass from an object to another object warmer than itself in an isolated system. I stress the word 'axiom' because even though the law pertains to the transmission of heat, it's commonly applied elsewhere to explain the limits of the transmission of entropy.

Now if overall life on earth grew from simple to more complex forms over long periods of time, it would imply that the system of life as a whole is self-organizing since there shouldn't be anything more complex than life that is exterior to it to do the organizing. And if it is self-organizing, its source of complexity is isolated by definition. So, my question is: if the source of complexity is isolated, doesn't that make the system in respect to its measure of complexity isolated? If so, why can't the same principle from the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply here?

If you can't answer that's ok, I can't either.

 

[notto]

The axiom or principle outlined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the rule that heat cannot pass from an object to another object warmer than itself in an isolated system. I stress the word 'axiom' because even though the law pertains to the transmission of heat, it's commonly applied elsewhere to explain the limits of the transmission of entropy.

Now if overall life on earth grew from simple to more complex forms over long periods of time, it would imply that the system of life as a whole is self-organizing since there shouldn't be anything more complex than life that is exterior to it to do the organizing. And if it is self-organizing, its source of complexity is isolated by definition. So, my question is: if the source of complexity is isolated, doesn't that make the system in respect to its measure of complexity isolated? If so, why can't the same principle from the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply here?

If you can't answer that's ok, I can't either.

As I've mentioned before, the 2nd law only applies to physical mechanisms. 'Evolution' isn't a physical mechanism. There is no such thing as a 'system of life' as you have stated here.

Unless you can isolate a specific physical mechanism, and show some units, data, etc, whatever it is you are talking about it is not the second law. Abandon this argument, whatever your source, it is wrong. It is only distracting you from learning what evolution actually is.

 

[random_guy]

The axiom or principle outlined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the rule that heat cannot pass from an object to another object warmer than itself in an isolated system. I stress the word 'axiom' because even though the law pertains to the transmission of heat, it's commonly applied elsewhere to explain the limits of the transmission of entropy.

First problem. The 2nd Law is a statistical observation. Over time, heat will move from a warmer object to a colder object. However, if we look at a small local area over a short period of time, the 2nd Law can be violated (this is how we get reverse reactions in chemistry). Over time, however, it will reach equilibrium.

Next, what do you mean by axiom? Axioms are accepted truths without question. There are no axioms in science because we can't prove anything in science. Take the Law of Gravity, for example. The Law is actually wrong under certain conditions. It seems like you're misusing axiom.

Now if overall life on earth grew from simple to more complex forms over long periods of time, it would imply that the system of life as a whole is self-organizing since there shouldn't be anything more complex than life that is exterior to it to do the organizing. And if it is self-organizing, its source of complexity is isolated by definition. So, my question is: if the source of complexity is isolated, doesn't that make the system in respect to its measure of complexity isolated? If so, why can't the same principle from the 2nd law of thermodynamics apply here?

If you can't answer that's ok, I can't either.

The reason is because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refers to the available amount of energy to do work. It's a mathematical formula. Like other people said, where is your mathematical work? You can't expect to use words as a substitute in a mathematical law. It'd be the equivalent of saying, flying violates the Law of Gravity since forces attract. This isn't true and it would be easy to see by showing a force diagram.

Show us you understand the 2nd Law by showing us the mathematics that disprove evolution. The reason why no Creationist ever does this is because they can't. Either they don't understand the second law and use layman words like complexity, or they know that evolution isn't disproven by the 2nd Law any more than seeds->trees. Finally, if you can't show the math, explain why a seed growing into a tree doesn't violate the 2nd Law, but a mutation in a gene that is later selected in the environment does violate the 2nd Law.

I think the problem is you need to forget all the science you learned from Creationist sources or else you'll never accept evolution since your science knowledge will be tainted.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Could you explain how much you know about thermodynamics? From this statement, it seems like you understand the Creationist version, not the scientific version. If what you said was true (simple->complex violates the 2nd Law) why does a seed growing into a tree not violate the 2nd Law? I suggest carefully listen to what rmwilliamsll and notto says, because if you think that nearly every scientist somehow missed the that evolution violates the 2nd Law, but Creationists with no physics education can see it, there's something clearly wrong.

My understanding of the 2nd law pertains to information theory. It's easy to understand how information is guaranteed to decay over time when running computer programs. My question is about how evolution is able to overcome this.

 

[random_guy]

My understanding of the 2nd law pertains to information theory. It's easy to understand how information is guaranteed to decay over time when running computer programs. My question is about how evolution is able to overcome this.

Does information theory apply to evolution? Not only that, how does the 2nd Law apply to information theory? I guarentee it's a different form. You said earlier that you're a layman when it comes to science. Isn't it raise flags that all the people that have studied some science are pointing out that you're making the same mistakes in your post? Why haven't you given an answer to why seeds growing into trees not violating the 2nd Law? How does a mutation in a gene that is selected for violating the 2nd Law?

The second law is generally only applicable to systems with a large number of molecules. When a small number of molecules are considered, a non-trivial possibility exists that heat will transfer from a colder region to a warmer region. In general, even for systems with a large number of molecules, there is a tiny, but non-zero probability that heat will transfer from a colder region to a warmer region.

Start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
This gives a good overview on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

EDIT: This will be helpful for you, also. Read this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organisation#Self-organization_vs._entropy

Self-organization vs. entropy

The idea of self-organization challenges an earlier paradigm of ever-decreasing order which was based on a philosophical generalization from the second law of thermodynamics in statistical thermodynamics where entropy is envisioned as a measure of the statistical "disorder" at a microstate level. However, at the microscopic or local level, the two need not be in contradiction: it is possible for a system to reduce its entropy by transferring it to its environment.
In open systems, it is the flow of matter and energy through the system that allows the system to self-organize, and to exchange entropy with the environment. This is the basis of the theory of dissipative structures. Ilya Prigogine noted that self-organization can only occur far away from thermodynamic equilibrium.
It would appear that, since isolated systems cannot decrease their entropy, only open systems can exhibit self-organization. However, such a system can gain macroscopic order while increasing its overall entropy. Specifically, a few of the system's macroscopic degrees of freedom can become more ordered at the expense of microscopic disorder.
In many cases of biological self-assembly, for instance metabolism, the increasing organization of large molecules is more than compensated for by the increasing entropy of small molecules, especially water. At the level of a whole organism and over longer time scales, though, biological systems are open systems feeding from the environment and dumping waste into it.