Evolutionary PRATTS

[Vance]

I am with the good Reverend, the biggest evolutionist PRATT for me (as an evolutionist, mind you), is the argument that evolution somehow disproves religious beliefs. Not too many argue this, but I have heard it often enough even here for it to be a legitimate PRATT. What is worse is that it is a PRATT that actually *feeds* the creationists who, ironically, argue the same thing.

 

[Nitron]

Creationism is equivalent to flat-earthism.

 

[keith99]

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

An oldie but goodie. Long ago I worked in a rather strange environment. Techies that would play charades. We used this once and the other side got it in a reasonable amount of time.

Later on we had visitors from another office. This was tried on them and 30 minutes later they gave up and when told the answer basically said ... What??? Took almost as long to explain what it meant (even if it is no longer accepted).

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

True, but you can't use the second law to say that evolution is impossible, because the Earth is not a closed system. It has energy input in the form of the sun, and energy output in the form of heat radiation.

Right. My point throughout this thread has merely been that we should be more precise with our retorts so we dont fall into PRATT traps. The 2nd law does not go away, it is just masked a bit by the sun. To say that non-closed systems are an exception to the 2nd law is a bit like saying birds are an exception to gravity. gravity is just masked by other forces.

 

[sfs]

These are both correct; what's wrong about them?

The first is wrong because it's just flat-out wrong. The SLoT applies to all physical systems (above a certain size, anyway), regardless of whether they are open or not. One particular formulation of the law, the one that states that entropy always increases, does not apply to open systems.

(By the way, I gather that it's not clear how to calculate the entropy of the universe as a whole, so using the universe as the system is probably not a good approach.)

The second is wrong because humans and modern apes descend from a common ancestor that was also an ape, by any and all definitions of "ape". It looked like an ape and it was a sister species to other ape species.

 

[Washington]

So far I haven't seen any evolutionist statement that really qualifies as a PRATT. Being involved in C-E discussions over the last 6-7 years, I find most of the examples to be pretty lame. Some like "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" were discarded years ago and doesn't survive as a serious argument. Others like "humans evolved from apes" depend on definition. In this case, the term "ape." Still others, like " "Creationists are all idiots," aren't really arguments about either evolution or creationism, but ad hom attacks. Evolutionists simply aren't prone to repeating statements that have been shown to be wrong. They don't need to. They have plenty of other very good bullets with which to shoot down creationism. There's no need to load up with blanks.

 

[sbvera13]

Creationism is equivalent to flat-earthism.

What's PRATTish about this one? They both are based on scripture, they both have zero positive evidence, and both have a substantial amount of contrary evidence. Looks like they make a pretty good pair to me.

 

[Aggie]

Post fallacious pro-evolutionary arguments that have been put forth by evolutionists. Akin to to Creationist PRATTS ("Flood caused geological strata"; "Giraffes don't give birth to walruses"), but for evolution.

You’ve probably already seen this thread, but I mentioned a few more of these here.

 

[Patashu]

"Micro- and macroevolution are terms invented by creationists."

Sort of true. Scientists as well as creationists have used the terms, but creationists invented their own usage for it. And, as we all know, concepts and meaning matter not the placeholders used to refer to them.

 

[ReverendDG]

You’ve probably already seen this thread, but I mentioned a few more of these here.

are those really pratts though? i don't really think they are, can you show how they are really?

 

[Patashu]

Right. My point throughout this thread has merely been that we should be more precise with our retorts so we dont fall into PRATT traps. The 2nd law does not go away, it is just masked a bit by the sun. To say that non-closed systems are an exception to the 2nd law is a bit like saying birds are an exception to gravity. gravity is just masked by other forces.

Open systems still go by the 2LoT, just not in their entirety. Interactions entirely within the system obey it, but interactions with the system and its surroundings will violate it (with respect to the system).

 

[Patashu]

As for PRATTs, would 'evolution is proven' count?

 

[ReverendDG]

Sort of true. Scientists as well as creationists have used the terms, but creationists invented their own usage for it. And, as we all know, concepts and meaning matter not the placeholders used to refer to them.

isn't microevo, within a species?
and macro above species?
creationists think its chimps giving birth to humans and animals gaining resistence

 

[Patashu]

The speed of light arguement.

It's principles are correct, but just about every creationist has heard it many times and already has an answer for it.

What's the speed of light argument? If it's to prove the universe is old, using some trigonometry trickery and such SN1987A can be used to prove the universe is at least 10^5 years old. Either that or light is speeding up/was faster at some point in the fast or has/had no constant speed, but those make no sense.

Just citing the distance to stars and speed of light won't do it, of course; you need to follow it up with (insert evidence here) that debunks tired light, light speed decay, etc. theories.

 

[Patashu]

isn't microevo, within a species?
and macro above species?
creationists think its chimps giving birth to humans and animals gaining resistence

Yes, the scientific definition is sub-species and super-species respectively.

 

[Aggie]

are those really pratts though? i don't really think they are, can you show how they are really?

Did you read the entire thread? Several people asked me about this there, and I explained it. A few of them acknowledged having used some of these arguments, and using them was a mistake.

 

[Impaler]

Just citing the distance to stars and speed of light won't do it, of course; you need to follow it up with (insert evidence here) that debunks tired light, light speed decay, etc. theories.

That's pretty much what I mean. Light from distant stars are still evidence of an old Universe, but the newcomers that use it don't tend to be prepared for the large amount of creationist responses to it.

 

[tanzanos]

Creationism is equivalent to flat-earthism.

Isn't it

 

[Aggie]

You still here?

The only thing worse that 8 pages of an arrogant, self-indulgent good-bye is 8 pages of lying, arrogant, self-indulgent good-bye.

As I said in my other reply to you, people like you are what ensure that people like us can never leave entirely.

When did you join this board? August of last year? It’s amazing that after six months here, you can think you know what’s reasonable to expect from this forum, or how to react to people like you who prevent the rest of us from having it. Do you even know any of the other people who have reacted the same way during the past two years? USincoginto, Jet Black, OnceDecieved, Troodon, or Mallon? Do any of those names ring a bell?

You’re about as ignorant of this forum as most members who have been here for so little time. What’s unusual in your case is that you’re arrogant enough to prevent you from realizing this.

 

[plindboe]

One thing I wonder is whether the concept of a "closed system" is used wrongly by evolutionists. As far as my book "Biological thermodynamics" (D.T.Haynie) is concerned, a closed system is one where matter is not exhanged with the sorroundings, but energy is. So it describes the Earth practically as a closed system. Instead the term "isolated system" is where the system neither exchange matter or energy with the sorroundings.

Perhaps we should start saying "The Earth is not an isolated system" from now on when addressing the 2nd law pratt.

Peter