another forgery from EVOS

[Jet Black]

What do I mean by mathmatically impossible? Simply this - given the quantity of evolutionary modifications or steps required between genera of organism, multiplied by the time it would take to effect the step taking into account the efficiency of that genotype variant being chanced upon, etc. etc. Remember, Charles Darwin confessed that only a single impossible step of evolution would constitute PROOF (not merely evidence) that evolution did not and could not occur. And in that point he was absolutely correct.

sorry, this is really wooly and seems to be akin to saying that you cannot get from San Fransisco to New York, because the average stride is only of the order of one metre wheras the distance between the cities is thousands of miles. the large qnanity of evolution is done in lots of little steps, in fact, it has to be really, since large steps could land you anywhere, and more probably will land you in a bad place, or a place where there is no obvious improvement. Say for instance we have a genotypically determined eye, which is not optimal because the distance from the lens to the retina is 2mm out. in the offspring of this organism, there might be a small variance, say half a millimetre, or even a full millimetre, and this will be selected upon, since the ones that are closer to the optimal will have better vision, and so on. However if the variation was vast, say a centimetre in a generation, then we never really get closer to an optimal structure. In short, evolution has to be in relatively small steps, "hopeful monsters" will not do

Physics_guy, the wimpiness of that argument is down at the level of what I'm reading in my Evolution textbook. It's no better than saying "If I drop a stack of 50 pennys from X meters high and two of them end up in a short stack after they've settled, we've proven that all 50 of them will settle in a single stack if we drop them enough times." The fantasy of Evolution (given all the non-homologous chromosomes, the differences in sex determination - [chromosomal vs. developmental vs. gene splicing vs. embryonic temperature], etc. between genera) is against thermodynamic laws in the same way. Its entropic (or random) energy that makes the hypothesis impossible.

I don't understand your analogy here. Either it is a poor representation of what you are trying to say, or your understanding of evolution is poor. I am inclined to suspect the latter, but this might just be bias.

your dropping pennies analogy has no selection between events, and indeed there is no method of selection. there is nothing that can be handed from one generation of penny dropping to the next. there is no flow of information between successive drops of the pennies. Each test is an entirely independent test from the previous one, and these points all add together to bear exactly no resemblance at all to evolution.

 

[kenneth558]

Frumious, thank you for your sincere reply. I should be studying for tomorrow's Histology test, but allow me to post a very simple statement. Hopefully it's not too simplistic -

What many folks don't seem to consider about probabilities relating to dynamic systems is that the random energy element (that makes the system dynamic) must be properly factored in if we are to correctly assess probabilities of occurrances. That's why I used the example of the pennies all forming a stack after they hit the ground. Think of it also as the probability within a container of all the air molecules finding themselves liquifying or solidifying together somewhere in the container due purely to random chance (no assistance from pressure or temperature changes). Agreed, the probabilities of this occurrance are calculatable. But it violates thermodynamic law regardless. It's not that the molecules would never wander into a single location - it's that entropy energy prevents them from doing so simultaneously. And it will prevent them from doing this forever. Time and chance CANNOT overcome that energy. Only ordered convergent forces upon those molecules can overcome entropy. Regardless of any calculated odds that would mislead a non-statistician. A properly educated statistician knows that just because a number can be assigned to the odds of an occurrance does make that occurrance possible.

It is easiest to apply this understanding to biogenesis: Regardless of evolutionists who would suggest (without a shred of scientific support) that life could have started in some form more simple and more chemically and thermodynamically favorable than life as we now know it, and yet be stable enough to exist, hyper-stable enough to reproduce, and yet unstable enough to evolve into the different life form as we now define as life, the fact that a cell CANNOT spontaneously form precludes a Godless explanation for biogenesis.

 

[Arikay]

Nope, the fact that a complex cell cant form from nonliving matter, falsifies spontaneous generation. it does not falsify abiogenesis.

Matter of fact, ive been looking into a post by lucaspa that has links about SW Fox,
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

 

[Aggie]

I'm getting rather frustrated that the creationists here keep using the same arguments over and over again without looking at the places we've already disproven them.

Here's what I posted last time someone claimed that evolution contradicted thermodynamics:

Creationists keep saying that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, but it doesn't. If the second law of thermodynamics was broad enough to prevent evolution from happening, it would prevent snowflakes from forming as well.

Here's a link to a more thorough explanation: http://www.christianforums.com/show...814#post1581814

Usually when creationists hear that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and that the earth doesn't qualify as one, they try to broaden the second law of thermodynamics to include situations that the this law does not apply to. Once they do that, however, their argument is no longer based on the second law of thermodynamics, but on an inference drawn from a very limited set of observations. The complexity in a non-closed system will sometimes decrease, but as I have shown in my snowflake example, it does not always.

I'm assuming that you were referring to the second law when you were saying that thermodynamics contradicted evolution. The other two laws of thermodynamics--that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that there can only be NO entropy when there is NO temperature (at absolute zero)--don't have even a superficial relevance to evolution.

 

[kenneth558]

Aggie, dude, when you ADD energy into a system, perhaps YOU can make it orderly and non-random, but the sun CAN'T. Energy from ANY star will increase the entropy (randomness) of whatever system it enters. So quit using the "closed system - open system" argument. It is irrelevant, even counterproductive to your position.

 

[Arikay]

The sun may increase the entropy of the entire system (earth sun system) but that doesn't mean that parts of that system cant decrease in entropy. as long as the overall entropy of the entire system is increasing.

Besides, "randomness" is not the best definition for entropy.

 

[armed2010]

Aggie, dude, when you ADD energy into a system, perhaps YOU can make it orderly and non-random, but the sun CAN'T. Energy from ANY star will increase the entropy (randomness) of whatever system it enters. So quit using the "closed system - open system" argument. It is irrelevant, even counterproductive to your position.

Do you honestly have any idea about what your talking about?

 

[kenneth558]

Arikay, All the hype about Sidney W. Fox's efforts are pure advertising for the cause of evolution. Sidney Fox is being recognized for his perserverance in the desperate and doomed cause that so many others gave up on. He couldn't succeed, and the best said of his results are only vague extrapolations and implications.

 

[kenneth558]

armed2010, Do I or is it over your head?

 

[armed2010]

armed2010, Do I or is it over your head?

Youve prettymuch shown you have no idea what your talking about, or what your even trying to argue against. I suggest that before you dig a hole too deep for you to dig out of, you go do some research and come back in a few days.

 

[Arikay]

How much have you studied fox's work?
It must be a lot, for you to be able to dismiss it so quickly.

 

[toff]

A properly educated statistician knows that just because a number can be assigned to the odds of an occurrance does make that occurrance possible.[/b]

Others on this thread are already attacking the many mistatements that you have made regarding entropy; I will merely attack one you have made regarding mathematics, above.

The fact that a number can be assigned to the probability of an occurrence says nothing at all about its possibility. However, the ONLY time that probability indicates that the occurrence is not possible is when that probability is zero (0). Any mathematician will tell you that. If the probability of an event happening is 0.0000(insert however many zeroes you like)0001, then that event is, by definition, possible - since it has a non-zero probability.

So your statement above is literally true; the assignment the probability of its occurence says nothing about its possibility. However, any mathematician will tell you that assigning a non-zero probability to the occurence of the event, however small that probability is, DOES - ALWAYS - mean that the event is possible.

 

[kenneth558]

but that doesn't mean that parts of that system cant decrease in entropy.

Where can you go with that "suggestion"? It's not worth the debate.

 

[Douglaangu]

The energy provided by the sun is converted into energy plants can use via photosynthesis. Hence, an increase in complexity as the result of energy entering a new system.

 

[Arikay]

So far you seem to be very dismissive. Lets say part of the sun earth system can descrease in randomness (a bad definition of entropy, but lets go with it) as long as the whole system increases in randomness.

With the sun being so much larger than the earth, changing huge amounts of energy from one form to another, it would suggest that the earth is cappable of doing whatever it wants as far as randomness is concerned, since even if the earth were to magically organize into a giant version of the Mona Lisa, I doubt that would be enough order to counter the randomness the sun produces.

 

[kenneth558]

... any mathematician will tell you that assigning a non-zero probability to the occurence of the event, however small that probability is, DOES - ALWAYS - mean that the event is possible.

Dude, merely "assigning" a non-zero probability to anything does not reach into the laws of nature and make an impossibility possible. Good grief!!

What you mean is that given enough time anything and everything will happen. Right? Let me tell you one of those things that will happen is that you will bow your knees and confess with your own tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord of all.

I'd better log off and get ready for class tomorrow. I'm sure I'll not be able to resist checking in with ya'll afterwards....

 

[Arikay]

So you waved away the work of a famous scientist, ignored people explaining 2LoT to you and how that even your version will not prevent evolution, and end with preaching. Wow that wasn't expected. To bad it couldnt be different.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Where can you go with that "suggestion"? It's not worth the debate.

What is not worth debate is the creationist claim that evolution violates the second law. To claim that evolution violates the second law you must do the math showing that a specific step required for evolution violates the second law. Please do this for us or quit making the claim. Show your work.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[toff]

Dude, merely "assigning" a non-zero probability to anything does not reach into the laws of nature and make an impossibility possible. Good grief!!

You demonstrate by this sentence that you don't understand what probability IS. If an event has a non-zero probability, then it is possible. If it is IMpossible, it has a zero probability. That is what probability MEANS. If something is IMpossible and someone has assigned it a non-zero probability, then that probability is wrong - the probability of it happening is zero. Assigning a probablity to an impossible event is simply wrong if the probability assigned is not zero.

What you mean is that given enough time anything and everything will happen. Right? Let me tell you one of those things that will happen is that you will bow your knees and confess with your own tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord of all.

What I mean is precisely what I said - events with a non-zero probability are possible, events with a zero probability are impossible - which is nothing like "given enough time anything and everything will happen." Why don't you actually try to understand what I've posted instead of inventing something I didn't say or imply?

As for the rest of that...umm...that's nice. Nothing at all to do with anything posted here, though.

 

[LorentzHA]

Thank you all for your patience - I probably shouldn't even be trying to get involved with this forum given the class load I'm taking. I don't expect to be able to post more than a couple times a month, so maybe I'll be another one of those Creationists who you think has low-tailed it outa' here.

Stick around. I think this forum could help with your understanding, your textbook does not seem to be doing the job. You are reading it, right? Yeah, I have a big class load too, but I come here to wind down and between lectures and studying. Kinda fun