Big Contradictions?

[Willtor]

Neither will an evolutionary site be the place to find them.

Journals is where to find them. One has to go to the source. Evolution websites tend to post the least controversial parts of evolution for the practical reason that they then don't have to change them every couple of months. As the field moves forward, the limits of what is known get pushed back. Controversies in evolution exist, but the creationist sources don't know what they are and the science sources don't post bleeding-edge stuff like that. One would have to go to the journals.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because, of course, actual scientists don't know as much about their subjects and disciplines as you do?

It's just a theory I've been working on.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are There Any Big Contradictions In The Evolutionary Theory?*

Yes. In order for the theory of evolution to be validated there must be evidence of the process of evolution, not just the perfected end results. In other words the wreckage of poor evolutionary decisions should be found in the fossil record (and I don't mean 'intermediate species' showing evidence of incomplete change).

It is said the evolution doesn't always make the right 'decisions' (a tantalizing subject all by itself). If so where is the evidence of these bad decisions?

For example, a bird with one wing shorter than the other would fly in circles and eventually up it's own butt. Where in the fossil record are those birds with one short wing and their heads up their butts?

 

[Willtor]

Yes. In order for the theory of evolution to be validated there must be evidence of the process of evolution, not just the perfected end results. In other words the wreckage of poor evolutionary decisions should be found in the fossil record (and I don't mean 'intermediate species' showing evidence of incomplete change).

It is said the evolution doesn't always make the right 'decisions' (a tantalizing subject all by itself). If so where is the evidence of these bad decisions?

For example, a bird with one wing shorter than the other would fly in circles and eventually up it's own butt. Where in the fossil record are those birds with one short wing and their heads up their butts?

Evolution says a bird with those properties is less likely to have offspring than one without. If such a thing ever existed, there would have been so few as to not leave fossils. Again, evolution selects against such things.

 

[SkyWriting]

Loss of ability to do work or no, it's a local drop in entropy. It doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics because it's an open system and there is a corresponding increase in entropy in the crystal's surroundings.

Entropy is not disorder. It's a level of energy held.
So a crystal does gain entropy as it forms.

 

[Willtor]

Entropy is not disorder. It's a level of energy held.
So a crystal does gain entropy as it forms.

You should fix the Wikipedia entry which says: "The entropy decrease due to the ordering of molecules within the system is overcompensated by the thermal randomization of the surroundings, due to the release of the heat of fusion; the entropy of the universe increases."

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Ok. The study of ToE is separate but the origin of life is not something that can be ignored by those who claim that life on earth was a totally natural event.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

I'm not from Texas but I am right about it being taught in the school I attended.

 

[Willtor]

I'm not from Texas but I am right about it being taught in the school I attended.

Being from Texas is not necessary. If you're from the U.S., your textbooks had to be approved by the Texas State School Board. The reason is that Texas is a big enough market that textbook makers can make back their investment from that state alone. So, whatever gets approved for Texas kids by their board -- that goes to everyone in the country.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Entropy is not disorder. It's a level of energy held.
So a crystal does gain entropy as it forms.

entropy is the integral of dQ/T for a given process.

It's not easy to simply state it in terms of words, but disorder does a pretty good job.

When water freezes to ice, it is losing heat (Q), at a constant temperature (T) so the entropy change is negative. Similarly for other crystals that form from liquids. They have a decrease of entropy as they form.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. In order for the theory of evolution to be validated there must be evidence of the process of evolution, not just the perfected end results. In other words the wreckage of poor evolutionary decisions should be found in the fossil record (and I don't mean 'intermediate species' showing evidence of incomplete change).

It is said the evolution doesn't always make the right 'decisions' (a tantalizing subject all by itself). If so where is the evidence of these bad decisions?

For example, a bird with one wing shorter than the other would fly in circles and eventually up it's own butt. Where in the fossil record are those birds with one short wing and their heads up their butts?

Very insightful.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Being from Texas is not necessary. If you're from the U.S., your textbooks had to be approved by the Texas State School Board. The reason is that Texas is a big enough market that textbook makers can make back their investment from that state alone. So, whatever gets approved for Texas kids by their board -- that goes to everyone in the country.

I see. I wasn't aware of that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution says a bird with those properties is less likely to have offspring than one without. If such a thing ever existed, there would have been so few as to not leave fossils. Again, evolution selects against such things.

My point is that if the 'natural selection' process is trial and error there should be plenty of evidence of those 'errors', unless natural selection gets it right the first time, every time. We should see the evidence of those bad designs all through the fossil record, but all we see are complete organisms well able to survive and reproduce. Way too perfect.

 

[Willtor]

I see. I wasn't aware of that.

Yeah, few people are aware of it, and it makes for a broken system. The Texas School Board has a big meeting where the textbook publishers bring the latest editions of their textbooks, and the board members propose alterations. Knowing something about the topics (science, history, literature, etc., but for the purposes of this conversation, science) is not a criterion of being a member of the board. So, whereas it was scientists and educators with a foundation in science (reasonably current in the literature, etc.) who initially wrote the textbooks, there are alterations made by people who know nothing about the topic -- or worse, are totally misinformed. You can imagine the resulting quality. Sometimes the publishers put their foot down, but they can't do it too frequently or the board will refuse to buy the textbooks.

Of course, scientists lament the quality of high school science textbooks. College textbooks (even Intro texts, which someone with only a high school background could read) are much better, much more accurate. They tend to be written by the scientists, themselves, and they don't have to go through the Texas School Board gauntlet, so you know they accurately reflect what scientists think.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, few people are aware of it, and it makes for a broken system. The Texas School Board has a big meeting where the textbook publishers bring the latest editions of their textbooks, and the board members propose alterations. Knowing something about the topics (science, history, literature, etc., but for the purposes of this conversation, science) is not a criterion of being a member of the board. So, whereas it was scientists and educators with a foundation in science (reasonably current in the literature, etc.) who initially wrote the textbooks, there are alterations made by people who know nothing about the topic -- or worse, are totally misinformed. You can imagine the resulting quality. Sometimes the publishers put their foot down, but they can't do it too frequently or the board will refuse to buy the textbooks.

Of course, scientists lament the quality of high school science textbooks. College textbooks (even Intro texts, which someone with only a high school background could read) are much better, much more accurate. They tend to be written by the scientists, themselves, and they don't have to go through the Texas School Board gauntlet, so you know they accurately reflect what scientists think.

Accurately reflect on what scientists think... Interesting.

 

[Willtor]

My point is that if the 'natural selection' process is trial and error there should be plenty of evidence of those 'errors', unless natural selection gets it right the first time, every time. We should see the evidence of those bad designs all through the fossil record, but all we see are complete organisms well able to survive and reproduce. Way too perfect.

I see what you mean. Before I respond, a quick point of clarification: Natural selection does not generate the field of possibilities. It culls it. So the "errors" you're talking about are generated by the modification that happens each generation. Natural selection, by definition, gets it right the first time, every time, because something that is unlikely to reproduce is... well... unlikely to reproduce.

To answer your question, though, talking about generational modification, and why don't we see "buggy" fossils:

Fossilization happens rarely. Typically, one should only expect to find fossils of organisms that thrived. Don't despair, though! You can find evidence of "buggy" changes, today. Animals with polycephaly (multiple heads), for example, appear from time to time. But they are so few, in comparison with their well-formed brethren, that they are unlikely to produce fossils. Certainly, natural selection ensures that they will not abound.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I see what you mean. Before I respond, a quick point of clarification: Natural selection does not generate the field of possibilities. It culls it. So the "errors" you're talking about are generated by the modification that happens each generation. Natural selection, by definition, gets it right the first time, every time, because something that is unlikely to reproduce is... well... unlikely to reproduce.

To answer your question, though, talking about generational modification, and why don't we see "buggy" fossils:

Fossilization happens rarely. Typically, one should only expect to find fossils of organisms that thrived. Don't despair, though! You can find evidence of "buggy" changes, today. Animals with polycephaly (multiple heads), for example, appear from time to time. But they are so few, in comparison with their well-formed brethren, that they are unlikely to produce fossils. Certainly, natural selection ensures that they will not abound.

Hi Willtor,
I've been away for quite awhile, and just got through reading your well informed comments here.
Thank you

 

[Speedwell]

My point is that if the 'natural selection' process is trial and error there should be plenty of evidence of those 'errors', unless natural selection gets it right the first time, every time. We should see the evidence of those bad designs all through the fossil record, but all we see are complete organisms well able to survive and reproduce. Way too perfect.

Almost all organisms are able to survive and reproduce. The range of variation is not so great that it would be obvious in the fossil record, but enough to produce a differential in breeding success. Your example of a bird with one wing observably longer than the other is just silly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your example of a bird with one wing observably longer than the other is just silly.

Where's yer sense of humor.

And like I said, things are waaay too perfect to have occurred accidently.