Big Contradictions?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Are There Any Big Contradictions In The Evolutionary Theory?*

~~~
*
Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
by Mike Adams

 

[JacksBratt]

There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.

This statement, above, was made by Sydney Harris, an evolutionist.

If you would like to argue that this only applies to closed systems, the following should put that to rest.

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

 

[Davian]

 

[essentialsaltes]

Any link from naturalnews.com is automatically beneath notice.

 

[Willtor]

There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.

This statement, above, was made by Sydney Harris, an evolutionist.

If you would like to argue that this only applies to closed systems, the following should put that to rest.

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

That can't be right. Otherwise, basically everything violates the second law of thermodynamics. If the second law applied to open systems, crystals could not form.

 

[lesliedellow]

QUOTE: "Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they'll usually give you a one-word answer: "Evolution."

What fun. Setting up a strawman, and then knocking it down again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are There Any Big Contradictions In The Evolutionary Theory?*

~~~
*
Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
by Mike Adams

Strange that I was thinking about starting a thread on Scientism a few days ago. While I don't agree with everything in the article Scientism is a definite reality and it saddens me that Science is suffering from it.

 

[Gracchus]

>>”Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they'll usually give you a one-word answer: 'Evolution.' Immediately thereafter, they will usually give you a condescending look that also implies you're an idiot for not knowing this 'scientific fact' that everyone else has accepted as true.” --- Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life - NaturalNews.com#


I note that this is a big, fat, stinking, obvious, egregious lie. Oh, wait! It would be a lie, but can't be because Mr. Mike Adams is a Christian, and everyone knows that Christians never lie and always get all their information straight from God. Still, I did ask an astronomer where the world came from and he went on about a “nebular hypothesis” and never once mentioned the word “evolution”. Moreover, any scientist who hasn't been in a coma for the last sixty years know that not everyone accepts evolution as a fact. But then, perhaps Mr. Adams is not a “real Christian”. Then he might very well be pumping porkies.


Mr. Adams then goes on to admit that evolution (the theory) does not, in fact even address the origin of life. The origin of life is under study to be sure, and several possible mechanisms have been proposed, but the question remains open. Still, a quick perusal of the rest of Mr. Adams' article revealed to me no “contradictions” in the scientific theories, although his own thinking processes, if we may call them such, seem to be … somewhat eccentric.


Perhaps someone more versed in his slightly skewed intellectual perambulations can point out to us these contradictions?

 

[sfs]

There is a factor called "entropy" in physics, indicating that the whole universe of matter is running down, and ultimately will reduce itself to uniform chaos. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems about as basic and unquestionable to modern scientific minds as any truth can be. At the same time that this is happening on the physical level of existence, something quite different seems to be happening on the biological level: structure and species are becoming more complex, more sophisticated, more organized, with higher degrees of performance and consciousness.

This statement, above, was made by Sydney Harris, an evolutionist.

You mean Syndey Harris, the syndicated columnist? Why on earth would anyone get scientific advice from a columnist?

If you would like to argue that this only applies to closed systems, the following should put that to rest.

Argue that what applies only to closed systems? The second law certainly applies, but the idea that entropy never decreases doesn't. So which are you talking about?

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Right. And from that we can conclude . . . what, exactly, since entropy can increase in such systems?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

'....everyone knows that Christians never lie and always get all their information straight from God...'

They're not the only ones.

'.... point out to us these contradictions? .... '

Oh if only I knew one, but Christians never lie.

 

[rjw]

Are There Any Big Contradictions In The Evolutionary Theory?*

~~~
*
Huge contradictions in 'scientific' thinking revealed: Theory of evolution in no way explains origins of life
by Mike Adams

I wouldn't expect the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, anymore than I would expect meteorological theory to explain the origin of the earth's atmosphere or germ theory to explain the origin of germs.

ToE explains what happened to life after it got going, just as meteorological science explains what happens to the atmosphere after it formed, just as germ theory explains how germs behave after they had originated.

Those "origins" questions are interesting but they tend to invoke different fields of scientific enquiry.

The origin of life, and germs invokes physics and chemistry. The origin of the earth's atmosphere invokes physics, chemistry and astronomy.

 

[rjw]

... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Indeed. Far-from-equilibrium phenomena, such as living organisms, behave well within the laws of thermodynamics, even when they are evolving.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wouldn't expect the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, anymore than I would expect meteorological theory to explain the origin of the earth's atmosphere or germ theory to explain the origin of germs.

ToE explains what happened to life after it got going, just as meteorological science explains what happens to the atmosphere after it formed, just as germ theory explains how germs behave after they had originated.

Those "origins" questions are interesting but they tend to invoke different fields of scientific enquiry.

The origin of life, and germs invokes physics and chemistry. The origin of the earth's atmosphere invokes physics, chemistry and astronomy.

The separation of evolution from origins is a relative new development. In its early years and when there was promise of finding the origins of life was ripe and expected it was a part of the theory. It was only when things were looking bad for it that it suddenly didn't matter anymore.

 

[rjw]

It was only when things were looking bad for it that it suddenly didn't matter anymore.

Can you provide me with some documentary evidence of that assertion?

It must still matter, because scientists continue to research the topic. For example some of the latest results:-

Heat flux across an open pore enables the continuous replication and selection of oligonucleotides towards increasing length

The replication of nucleic acids is central to the origin of life. On the early Earth, suitable non-equilibrium boundary conditions would have been required to surmount the effects of thermodynamic equilibrium such as the dilution and degradation of oligonucleotides. One particularly intractable experimental finding is that short genetic polymers replicate faster and outcompete longer ones, which leads to ever shorter sequences and the loss of genetic information. Here we show that a heat flux across an open pore in submerged rock concentrates replicating oligonucleotides from a constant feeding flow and selects for longer strands. Our experiments utilize the interplay of molecular thermophoresis and laminar convection, the latter driving strand separation and exponential replication. Strands of 75 nucleotides survive whereas strands half as long die out, which inverts the above dilemma of the survival of the shortest. The combined feeding, thermal cycling and positive length selection opens the door for a stable molecular evolution in the long-term microhabitat of heated porous rock.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you provide me with some documentary evidence of that assertion?

It must still matter, because scientists continue to research the topic. For example some of the latest results:-

Heat flux across an open pore enables the continuous replication and selection of oligonucleotides towards increasing length

I shouldn't post when I have a headache. You are absolutely right that scientists are still researching. I meant that it was separated not that it didn't matter.

I don't know if I can find any documentation now. I know that when I was in school at least as late as Jr. High the origins of life was still included in biology within the evolutionary theory.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The separation of evolution from origins is a relative new development. In its early years and when there was promise of finding the origins of life was ripe and expected it was a part of the theory. It was only when things were looking bad for it that it suddenly didn't matter anymore.

"it is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life"

Charles Darwin
3rd edition of The Origin of Species, 1861

The separation is not a new development. The theory did not include the origins of life from the very beginning. The theory is about the origin of species, not of life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"it is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life"

Charles Darwin
3rd edition of The Origin of Species, 1861

The separation is not a new development. The theory did not include the origins of life from the very beginning. The theory is about the origin of species, not of life.

Darwin changed his position on origins several times during his life but his belief that life came from "a warm little pond" was documented in personal communications. Regardless, whether or not Darwin printed his beliefs, in School books origins was included.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Darwin changed his position on origins several times during his life but his belief that life came from "a warm little pond" was documented in personal communications. Regardless, whether or not Darwin printed his beliefs, in School books origins was included.

The topic was not Darwin's ideas or schoolbooks, but "The separation of evolution from origins". The theory of evolution has never been about the origin of life.

 

[Willtor]

Darwin changed his position on origins several times during his life but his belief that life came from "a warm little pond" was documented in personal communications. Regardless, whether or not Darwin printed his beliefs, in School books origins was included.

You might be right about what's taught in high school. High school texts, which have to pass the Texas School Board, are notoriously bad about representing evolution as scientists understand (or have ever understood) it. Nevertheless, this is a pretty significant error for them to make. Can you cite a textbook that says "origin of life" as opposed to "origin of species" as a part of evolution?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I wouldn't expect the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, anymore than I would expect meteorological theory to explain the origin of the earth's atmosphere or germ theory to explain the origin of germs.

ToE explains what happened to life after it got going, just as meteorological science explains what happens to the atmosphere after it formed, just as germ theory explains how germs behave after they had originated.

Hasn't science prematurely elevated a working hypothesis to a genuine theory here?