How Evolution Gained Prominence

[kingreaper]

I'm confused. I am not attacking you, but I am asking a question. (And frankly I don't know your beliefs). Doesn't even atheistic evolution entail a telos? .

I don't thinnk so, but I'm not 100% on what a telos is

Why should there be such a thing as natural selection?

Because what doesn't exist, can't exist

If something doesn't reproduce there won't be any reproductions of it around, but if something reproduces a lot there'll be lots of reproductions, simple logic

Why should brute matter care whether we survive or not?

It doesn't

And if it doesn't care, how can it be inclined toward natural selection?

Because natural selection is a logical requirement of imperfect replicators, whether "Gaia" cares or not

And even if it were so inclined, evolution assumes that the laws of physics dictate the motions of particles, doesn't it?

Not as such, but kinda I suppose

So any biological changes would not incline toward survival of the fittest but would rather fulfill the laws of physics just like any particle does.

They do both

 

[Cassandra]

I should like to know what class this was for, what the assignment was, what your sources were, and what your instructor had to say about it.

 

[JAL]

If something doesn't reproduce there won't be any reproductions of it around, but if something reproduces a lot there'll be lots of reproductions, simple logic

I feel pretty dumb, but I think I'm getting it now. I posed the same question on other threads and got similar responses. It took me a little while, but I think I see the logic now. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Bushido216]

I'm confused. I am not attacking you, but I am asking a question. (And frankly I don't know your beliefs). Doesn't even atheistic evolution entail a telos? Why should there be such a thing as natural selection? Why should brute matter care whether we survive or not? And if it doesn't care, how can it be inclined toward natural selection? And even if it were so inclined, evolution assumes that the laws of physics dictate the motions of particles, doesn't it? So any biological changes would not incline toward survival of the fittest but would rather fulfill the laws of physics just like any particle does.

Please enlighten me on how evolutionists would answer these questions. Then if I reasons to disagree, I'll try to debate the issue with you. Thanks.

No evolution does not entail a telos. Infact, only creationists assume it does in an attempt to derail the theory.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that "brute matter" is intelligent. It isn't. It simply acts. "Brute" is something you apply to a person or an intelligent entity. In that way, natural selection is a term for a process of the universe like gravity or particle motion.

So, yes, biology fulfills the laws of physics. Natural selection isn't a process in and of itself, but rather a term for an observed fact, that fact being that those genotypes that survive tend to be those that were best suited for their environment. That's all natural selection is, an umbrella term stating that the best fit variation had a better chance to produce the most offspring.

It isn't a process that literally reaches down from the heavens and grabs certain individuals. It doesn't change the order of particles. It just selects from pre-arranged organizations of particles.

 

[Bushido216]

Heh, JAL, you may want to read mine. I think a hollistic approach to your question would work better over a reductionist answer (damned scientists on this board! Hah!).

 

[JAL]

No evolution does not entail a telos. Infact, only creationists assume it does in an attempt to derail the theory.

I neglected to note your Catholic logo. If you are a Catholic evolutionist, please tell me how to reconcile evolution with Romans 5. I think that Catholics would agree with me that Romans 5 is speaking literally of Christ as the one man propitiatory for all, and Adam as the one man condemnational for all. So if Adam is not a metaphor then I would think that Genesis 1, 2, and 3 are literal. How does Adam fit into evolution?

 

[Silent Bob]

I neglected to note your Catholic logo. If you are a Catholic evolutionist, please tell me how to reconcile evolution with Romans 5. I think that Catholics would agree with me that Romans 5 is speaking literally of Christ as the one man propitiatory for all, and Adam as the one man condemnational for all. So if Adam is not a metaphor then I would think that Genesis 1, 2, and 3 are literal. How does Adam fit into evolution?

I am not a Catholic and I don't wish to speak for them but I searched on the net and found out some interesting facts.

This is a quote from the website I found (URL will follow)

The Catholic Church. "Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

An interesting thing to note is that more than 50% of US Christians follow denominations that do not profess inerrancy. 101.77 mill vs 41.52 mill. However I think that if you move away from the US you'll find that the US have the biggest ammount of creationists compared to other countries. Why is that so? Maybe due to US's public education? Maybe the US are too conservative maybe something else?

Neway here's the website: http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html

 

[ForeRunner]

I neglected to note your Catholic logo. If you are a Catholic evolutionist, please tell me how to reconcile evolution with Romans 5. I think that Catholics would agree with me that Romans 5 is speaking literally of Christ as the one man propitiatory for all, and Adam as the one man condemnational for all. So if Adam is not a metaphor then I would think that Genesis 1, 2, and 3 are literal. How does Adam fit into evolution?

I am not Catholic, however, I did attend a Catholic University and took quite a few theology courses.

It amounts to this, Catholics, or at least Catholic Scholars (and most clergy) do not believe in a literal genesis. They do not believe that Adam and Eve were real people.

Adam is a metaphor for mankind, for all of human beings. So when the Bible says that Jesus came to earth for the sins of Adam, it is saying that Jesus came to earth for the sins of mankind.

That fits in perfectly with theistic evolution since it does not require two actual human being named Adam and Eve, only human beiungs in general

 

[Agape Theos]

This is patently false. If the 2LoTD worked as you say it does, you would never have been born.

What the 2LoTD does say is that energy tends to go from high energy regions to low energy regions save for an outside force.

Now, this could invalidate evolutionary theory (and your birth for that matter) if the earth were a closed system. It is not. We are constantly recieving energy from the sun (that big yellow orb). We are provided the energy needed for doing things like constructing proteins, birthing, and evolving.

k?

Actually, your statement is patently false. If it were true that a closed system is required for 2LoTD to break down order into chaos, then cars sitting in a field would not rust, because they are in an open system. the fact is they do rust, as they are broken down from the transfer of energy from the elements in the atmosphere to the metal. That energy becomes unusable, and thus the 2LoTD holds true for an open system.

The same is true for such things as erosion. Rivers, lakes, and mountains are all part of an open system, according to your definition. Yet the actions of the water's energy on the mountain reduces the mountain over time, and the energy used for that work becomes forever unusable.

Also, the earth may indeed be an open system, but the universe is a closed system. So your argument fails on two levels. However, the fact that 2LoTD works marvelously in an open system is the real reason what you have said cannot be true.

Another point, I might add, is that the very nature of chemistry says that life could not have spontaneously generated itself. I know that is not evolution, but for a atheistic evolution to be at all true, then spontaneous generation of life has to have happened.

Amino acids come in two flavors, right-handed an left-handed, what is called chirality. Out of 200 known amino acids, only 20 are benificial to life, and of those 20 only the left-handed ones can be used to manufacture proteins that living things use. If one single wrong-handed amino acid is introduced to the process, then the whole protien structure breaks down. In the proposed primordial sea scenerio, there would have been an even mixture of both charilities among amino acids. This has been shown repeatedly in lab experiments by evolutionists.

So now there are at least two reasons why spontaneous genaration could not have possibley happened. The materials do not possess the capabaility to even accidentally organize themselves, as they in fact repel each other. And 2LoTD does in fact operate in complete breakdown of matter in open systems.

 

[ForeRunner]

Actually, your statement is patently false. If it were true that a closed system is required for 2LoTD to break down order into chaos, then cars sitting in a field would not rust, because they are in an open system. the fact is they do rust, as they are broken down from the transfer of energy from the elements in the atmosphere to the metal. That energy becomes unusable, and thus the 2LoTD holds true for an open system.

The same is true for such things as erosion. Rivers, lakes, and mountains are all part of an open system, according to your definition. Yet the actions of the water's energy on the mountain reduces the mountain over time, and the energy used for that work becomes forever unusable.

Also, the earth may indeed be an open system, but the universe is a closed system. So your argument fails on two levels. However, the fact that 2LoTD works marvelously in an open system is the real reason what you have said cannot be true.

You don't seem to know much about 2LOTD. Firstly, it has to do with heat tranfser, not order/chaos.

Secondly, it deals with net entropy of a system. That is to say, in an open system it is possible for net entopy to either increase or decrease. In a closed system, net entropy will always increase, however, there are parts of that system that can have a net decrease in entropy as long as the whole system has a net increase in entropy.

Another point, I might add, is that the very nature of chemistry says that life could not have spontaneously generated itself. I know that is not evolution, but for a atheistic evolution to be at all true, then spontaneous generation of life has to have happened.

Out of curiosity, where did you get your PhD in Biochemistry and how long have you been researching abiogenesis (yes it has a name) in order to come to that conclusion

Amino acids come in two flavors, right-handed an left-handed, what is called chirality.

I'd be curious if you even knew what chirality means.

Out of 200 known amino acids, only 20 are benificial to life, and of those 20 only the left-handed ones can be used to manufacture proteins that living things use.

Simply, totally, and 100% wrong. All 20 Amino acids are used to make proteins. Chirality can affect the way they react, but not whether they work.

If one single wrong-handed amino acid is introduced to the process, then the whole protien structure breaks down. In the proposed primordial sea scenerio, there would have been an even mixture of both charilities among amino acids. This has been shown repeatedly in lab experiments by evolutionists.

Again, you are totally wrong.

So now there are at least two reasons why spontaneous genaration could not have possibley happened. The materials do not possess the capabaility to even accidentally organize themselves, as they in fact repel each other. And 2LoTD does in fact operate in complete breakdown of matter in open systems.

You really need to do some research, you are scraping the bottom of the PRATT list bottle.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, order always degrades to chaos in closed sysems.

It may happen in open systems, but that is not always the case.

 

[Freodin]

Somehow I think Creationists do never follow their statements to their logical conclusion.

They boldly state that the 2LoT forbids Evolution, because it declares that order cannot arise from disorder.

But then they apply this conclusion exclusively to the Theory of Evolution. They don´t see that this conclusion would forbid a whole ton of other things - from the lifecycle of humans to the most basic chemical reactions.

Yet these things DO happen - and not even the most stubbon Creationist will deny that they happen. So why do they, when the 2LoT does forbid them.

There are two possible explanations.

The first is that the 2LoT does not work. Either because it does not work in the way the Creationist stated, or because it does not work at all, and "Evolutionists" just don´t see it.
Of course, this option is out for Creationists, because it would mean that their objection to Evolution does not work.

The second option is that there is an overriding mechanism that keeps the 2LoT from working in this certain observed situations.
Creationists assume that such a mechanism exists, and that it is the supernatural influence of God.

And then they stop...

They might get as far as to accept that with God´s influence, Evolution could be possible, and just continue to object it for different reasons...

But they never, NEVER, get to the point where they had to admit to themselves that this explanation against Athistic Evolution would also lead to the inevitable conclusion that it is God´s direct creation that makes ALL effects that lead to "order" possible.

All effects.
If God didn´t directly form new life - adding cell upon cell - they would not exist.
If God didn´t personally build the bondage of molecules, no chemical compount would exist, no production would work, no energy would be produced.

If God didn´t personally form the patterns of neurons and electrical impulses in your brain, the thoughts you now think to refute this post would not be thought.

If God didn´t personally and directly create everything - and that means really and literally EVERYTHING - it would not exist.

So much for "God does not want robots" or "God does not create evil, he only lets it happen."


But that is a conclusion Creationists never draw from these 2LoT lines.

 

[Agape Theos]

Funny, Freodin, how your entire response can be summed up in just a couple words..."You're wrong!" You used snide sarcasm and no scientific rebuttal. This is common in every debate I have participated in with an evolutionist.

Now, if you want to talk about my statements about amino acids, you can take it up with my following sources:

Dr. Richard Lewontin, who holds his PhD. in biochemistry and invented the theory of biochemical predestination and then later debunked it himself.
Dr. John Baumgardner, who holds PhD's in both geophysics and in space physics.
Dr. Timothy Standish, who holds his PhD in biology.
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, who holds his PhD in physical chemistry.

These people are the source of my information, and I guarantee that you will not find a single reputable PhD in any of these fields that would refute what I stated about amino acids. You are just daydreaming, dude.

And, since you so blithely dismiss my statement about 2LoTD, then I will give you my sources here, as well. You are disagreeing with thousands of PhDs in many related fields.

Dr. Andrew McIntosh, who holds PhDs in Mathematics and theory of combustion, and a B.S. in applied mathematics. Specializing in these fields he has a LOT of experience with the 2LoTD.
Dr. Colin Mitchell, who holds his PhD in Soil Geography, and is a consultantto the UN on agricultural development. He is a LOT of experience on how 2LoTD applies to open systems.
Dr. John Cimbala, holding PhD in aeronautics. Another field which sees directly the impacts of 2LoTD.

You are going to have to do a whole lot better than, "you're wrong." Give us some science, dude! Tell us what the PhDs you get your information from says. You will be VERY hard pressed to find PhDs that agree with you on amino acids or thermodynamics.

 

[Split Rock]

Actually, your statement is patently false. If it were true that a closed system is required for 2LoTD to break down order into chaos, then cars sitting in a field would not rust, because they are in an open system. the fact is they do rust, as they are broken down from the transfer of energy from the elements in the atmosphere to the metal. That energy becomes unusable, and thus the 2LoTD holds true for an open system.

Cars do NOT rust from the "transfer of energy" from the elements. The oxidation of iron that produces rust is a SPONTANEOUS process and therefore does not require an input of energy.

The same is true for such things as erosion. Rivers, lakes, and mountains are all part of an open system, according to your definition. Yet the actions of the water's energy on the mountain reduces the mountain over time, and the energy used for that work becomes forever unusable.

Why does wind produce ordered structures like sand dunes and tornadoes?

Also, the earth may indeed be an open system, but the universe is a closed system. So your argument fails on two levels. However, the fact that 2LoTD works marvelously in an open system is the real reason what you have said cannot be true.

The second law does not preclude LOCAL increases in entropy in a closed system (eg the universe).

 

[Freodin]

Funny, Freodin, how your entire response can be summed up in just a couple words..."You're wrong!" You used snide sarcasm and no scientific rebuttal. This is common in every debate I have participated in with an evolutionist.

I would agree that the gist of my post is "You´re wrong!" - that is because I think you are wrong. But you seemed to have missed my explanation why I think you are wrong.
I´m sorry my post lacked a scientific rebuttal - that is because I did not use one, but a logical rebuttal - which you seem to have mistaken for snide sarcasm.

Believe me, when I use snide sarcasm, you will be able to identify it as such. (For example, in the last sentence)

Now, if you want to talk about my statements about amino acids, you can take it up with my following sources:

Dr. Richard Lewontin, who holds his PhD. in biochemistry and invented the theory of biochemical predestination and then later debunked it himself.
Dr. John Baumgardner, who holds PhD's in both geophysics and in space physics.
Dr. Timothy Standish, who holds his PhD in biology.
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, who holds his PhD in physical chemistry.

These people are the source of my information, and I guarantee that you will not find a single reputable PhD in any of these fields that would refute what I stated about amino acids. You are just daydreaming, dude.

I have no knowledge about aminoacids. I am not a Organic Chemist or a Biologist. I am a historian.
But you might have noticed that I did not even try to debate aminoacids in my post - it was against the argument from the 2LoT.
This is a different point and has to be adressed as a different point.

But his is common in every debate I have participated in with an creationist. They like to shift the goalposts. (See, there was the snide sarcasm again!)

And, since you so blithely dismiss my statement about 2LoTD, then I will give you my sources here, as well. You are disagreeing with thousands of PhDs in many related fields.

Dr. Andrew McIntosh, who holds PhDs in Mathematics and theory of combustion, and a B.S. in applied mathematics. Specializing in these fields he has a LOT of experience with the 2LoTD.
Dr. Colin Mitchell, who holds his PhD in Soil Geography, and is a consultantto the UN on agricultural development. He is a LOT of experience on how 2LoTD applies to open systems.
Dr. John Cimbala, holding PhD in aeronautics. Another field which sees directly the impacts of 2LoTD.

Hm, now why does that look like "These people say you are wrong!"? Perhaps because it is? (Wow, I love this snide sarcasm!)

If you (as I think falsely) consider my post as a simple "You´re wrong!" argument, perhaps you point me to a source for what these people are stating about the 2LoT, so that I do not have to return your accusation?

You are going to have to do a whole lot better than, "you're wrong." Give us some science, dude! Tell us what the PhDs you get your information from says. You will be VERY hard pressed to find PhDs that agree with you on amino acids or thermodynamics.

If you deign to look closer at my post, you will see that I indeed made an argument. It is not a scientific argument, but a logical one. If you think it is incorrect, then please show me why. Waving it away and replacing it with a counter that is truly void of informations does not stimulate a serious debate.

 

[Split Rock]

Dr. Andrew McIntosh, who holds PhDs in Mathematics and theory of combustion, and a B.S. in applied mathematics. Specializing in these fields he has a LOT of experience with the 2LoTD.

Let's take a look at the list of publications from the website of your best example of an expert on thermodynamics (http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cfd/acm_publs.htm)

Fundamental Studies : Flames / Stability / Pressure interactions
1 McIntosh, A. C. Pressure disturbances of different length scales interacting with conventional flames. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 75, 287-309, (1991).
2 McIntosh, A.C. The linearised response of the mass burning rate of a premixed flame to rapid pressure changes. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 91(4-6), 329-346 (1993).
3 Johnson, R.G., McIntosh, A.C. and Brindley, J. Extinction of premixed flames by pressure drops. Comb. and Flame, 102, 493-500 (1995).
4 Johnson, R.G., McIntosh, A.C. and Brindley, J. Evolution of a fast flame behind an induction zone. Shock Waves, 6(4), 225-232, (1996).
5 McIntosh, A.C. The influence of pressure waves on the initial development of an explosion kernel. AIAA Journal, 33(9), 1651-1658, (1995).
6 Liu, F., McIntosh, A.C. and Brindley, J. An numerical investigation of Rayleigh-Taylor effects in pressure wave-premixed flame interactions. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 91(4-6), 373- 386 (1993).(Short Communication).
7 Batley, G.A., McIntosh, A.C., Brindley, J. and Falle, S.A.E.G. A numerical study of the vorticity field generated by the interaction of a planar pressure wave and a cylindrical premixed laminar flame. J. Fluid Mech., 279, 217-237 (1994).
8 Batley, G.A., McIntosh, A. C. and Brindley, J. Baroclinic distortion of laminar flames. Proc. Roy. Soc., A452, 199-221, (1996).
9 Greenberg, J.B., McIntosh, A.C. and Brindley, J. Instability of a flame front propagating through a fuel-rich droplet-vapour-air cloud. Combustion Theory and Modelling, 3(3), 567-584, (Sept. 1999).

Acoustic Resonance of Burners
10 McIntosh, A. C. Flames resonance and acoustics in the presence of heat loss. American Mathematical Society, Lectures in Applied Maths (Ed. G.S.S. Ludford): 24(1), 269-301, Providence, RI, USA (1986). ISBN 0-8218-1124-4.
11 McIntosh, A.C. and Rylands, S. A model of heat transfer in Rijke Tube Burners. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 113/114, 273-289, (1996).
12 McIntosh, A. C. On Flame Resonance in Tubes. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 69, 147-152 (1990) (Short Communication).
13 Raun, R.L. and Beckstead M.W. A numerical model for temperature gradient and particle effects on Rijke Burner Oscillations. Comb. and Flame, 94, 1-24 (1993).
Droplet Ignition
14 McIntosh, A.C., Goldshtein, V., Goldfarb, I. and Zinoviev, A. Thermal Explosion in a combustible gas containing fuel droplets. Comb. Theory and Modelling, 2, 153-165, (June 1998).
Damp Ignition
15 McIntosh, A.C. A Semenov approach to the modelling of thermal runaway of damp combustible material. IMA J. Applied Maths, 51(3), 217-238 (Dec. 1993).
16 McIntosh, A.C. Condensation-enhanced ignition of damp combustible material. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 24(8), 11-20, (1996).
17 McIntosh, A.C. and Gray, B.F. The ignition of damp combustible material where the fibres are entirely covered with H20. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 104 (4-6), 235- , (1995).

Ignition of Combustible Fluids in Porous Media
18 McIntosh, A.C., Bains, W., Crocombe, W. and Griffiths, J.F. Autoignition of combustible fluids in porous insulation materials. Comb. and Flame, 99(3,4), 541-550 (Dec. 94). Presented at the 25th Symposium (International) on Combustion, Irvine, California, Aug.1-5th 1994.
19 McIntosh, A.C. and Griffiths, J.F. On the thermal runaway of combustible fluids in lagging material. IMA J. Applied Maths, 54, 83-96, (1995).
20 McIntosh, A.C. and Gray, B.F. Self-heating of combustible vapour in porous material when the fibres are entirely covered by fluid. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 113/114, 503-515, (1996).
21 McIntosh, A.C., Truscott, J.E., Brindley, J., Griffiths, J.F. and Hafiz, N. Spatial effects in the thermal runaway of combustible fluids in insulation materials. Special Edition to commemorate the 70th Birthday of Professor Peter Gray FRS, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Transactions, 92(16), 2965-2969, 1996.
22 Truscott, J.E., Brindley, J. McIntosh, A.C. and Griffiths, J.F. The effect of diffusion on the autoignition of combustible fluids in insulation materials. IMA J. Applied Maths, 57, 257-271, (1996).
23 Brindley, J., Griffiths, J.F., Zhang, J., Hafiz, N.A. and McIntosh, A.C. Critical criteria for ignition of combustible fluids in insulation materials. AIChE Journal, 44(5), 1027-1037, (May 1998).
24 McIntosh, A.C. Lagging ignition of combustible fluids in porous media - effect of fuel supply rate. Comb. Theory and Modelling, 2, 179-192, (June 1998).
25 Brindley, J., Griffiths, J.F., Hafiz, N.A., McIntosh, A.C. and Zhang, J. Criteria for autoignition of combustible fluids in insulation materials. Trans. IChemE, 77 (B), March 1999, 61-68.
26 Goldshtein, V., McIntosh, A.C. and Zinoviev, A. A spatially uniform model of self-ignition due to combustible fluid leakage in insulation materials - the effect of initial conditions. SIAM J. Applied Maths, 59(4),1251-1265 (1999).
27 McIntosh, A.C., Gray, B.F. and Wake, G.C. Analysis of the bifurcational behaviour of a simple model of vapour ignition in a porous material. Proc. Roy. Soc., A453, 281-301, (1997).

Fire Safety - Fire and Smoke Movement in Buildings
28 Charters, D.A. and McIntosh, A.C. FASIT - a computer model for predicting fire in tunnels. Fire (J. Fire Protection), 88 (1082), 13-14 (1995).
29 Rylands, S., Davis, P., McIntosh, A.C. and Charters, D.A. Predicting Fire and Smoke movement in tunnels using zone modelling. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Safety in Road and Rail Tunnels, 9th - 11th March, Nice, France, (Ed. A. Vardy), ITC / University of Dundee, 127-138, (1998). ISBN 1-901-808-033.
Fire Safety - Ignition of Polymers and Use of Retardants to Restrict Ignition
30 Nelson, M.I., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. A Mathematical model of Ignition in the Cone Calorimeter. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 104(1-3), 33- (1995).
31 Nelson, M.I., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. The dependence of critical heat flux on fuel and additive properties: a critical mass flux model. Fire Safety Journal, 24, 107-130 (1995).
32 McIntosh, A.C., Nelson., M.I. and Brindley, J. The ignition properties of thermally thin materials in the cone calorimeter: a critical heat flux model. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 113/114, 221-241, (1996).
33 Leung, C.H., Staggs, J.E.J., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. Modelling of a one-dimensional ablation process with char formation. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 119(1-6), 301-329, (1996).
34 Nelson, M.I., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. Polymer Ignition. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 24(8), 39-46, (1996).
35 Nelson, M.I., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. Ignition of thermally thin thermoplastics - the effectiveness of inert additives in reducing flammability. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 54, 255-266, (1996).
36 Leung, C.H., Staggs, J.E.J., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. Heat transfer to an infinite solid through a moving boundary. Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer, 24(2), 181-189, (1997).
37 Nelson, M.I., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. The effect of heat sink additives on the ignition and heat release properties of thermally thin thermoplastics. Fire Safety Journal, 28, 67-94, (1997).
38 Leung, C.H., Staggs, J.E.J., Brindley, J. and McIntosh, A.C. Modelling of polymer ablation including a substrate base. Comb. Sci. and Tech., 126(1-6), 53-, (1997).
39 Ball, R., McIntosh, A.C. and Brindley, J. Thermokinetic models for simultaneous reactions: a comparative study. Comb. Theory and Modelling, 3(3), 447-468, (Sept. 1999).

I find it curious that NONE of his publications deals with the second law and evolution.

 

[michabo]

If it were true that a closed system is required for 2LoTD to break down order into chaos, then cars sitting in a field would not rust, because they are in an open system.

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the second law of thermodynamics may be disproved by a simple, every-day, inevitable chemical reaction. You're saying that you have been gifted with this insight which has escaped the notice of generations of scientists.

Could you set aside your hubris for a moment and consider that it is your understanding of thermodynamics which is in error and not thermodynamics (or evolution) itself?

To lend support for this argument, I notice that you have not once used an accurate summation of the 2LoT. Can you share with us how your definition can possibly map to the accepted definition?

 

[gluadys]

And, since you so blithely dismiss my statement about 2LoTD, then I will give you my sources here, as well. You are disagreeing with thousands of PhDs in many related fields.

Dr. Andrew McIntosh, who holds PhDs in Mathematics and theory of combustion, and a B.S. in applied mathematics. Specializing in these fields he has a LOT of experience with the 2LoTD.
Dr. Colin Mitchell, who holds his PhD in Soil Geography, and is a consultantto the UN on agricultural development. He is a LOT of experience on how 2LoTD applies to open systems.
Dr. John Cimbala, holding PhD in aeronautics. Another field which sees directly the impacts of 2LoTD.

And which of these experts claims it is impossible for entropy to decrease in a system so long as the net entropy in the system and its surroundings increases?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Funny, Freodin, how your entire response can be summed up in just a couple words..."You're wrong!" You used snide sarcasm and no scientific rebuttal. This is common in every debate I have participated in with an evolutionist.

And, besides ignoreing his entire reductio ad absurdum, you have just...

Used a strawman of his argument.
Committed an ad hominem
and poisoned the well for making such a sweeping generalization of evolutionists.

Perhaps there's a reason your debates with evolutionists don't go so well?

Now, if you want to talk about my statements about amino acids, you can take it up with my following sources:

Dr. Richard Lewontin, who holds his PhD. in biochemistry and invented the theory of biochemical predestination and then later debunked it himself.
Dr. John Baumgardner, who holds PhD's in both geophysics and in space physics.
Dr. Timothy Standish, who holds his PhD in biology.
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, who holds his PhD in physical chemistry.

Ah. Arguments from Authority. Probably too much to expect a link, is it?

These people are the source of my information, and I guarantee that you will not find a single reputable PhD in any of these fields that would refute what I stated about amino acids. You are just daydreaming, dude.

More arguments from authority, from someone obviously far too busy to support their own ideas.

And, since you so blithely dismiss my statement about 2LoTD, then I will give you my sources here, as well. You are disagreeing with thousands of PhDs in many related fields.

Dr. Andrew McIntosh, who holds PhDs in Mathematics and theory of combustion, and a B.S. in applied mathematics. Specializing in these fields he has a LOT of experience with the 2LoTD.
Dr. Colin Mitchell, who holds his PhD in Soil Geography, and is a consultantto the UN on agricultural development. He is a LOT of experience on how 2LoTD applies to open systems.
Dr. John Cimbala, holding PhD in aeronautics. Another field which sees directly the impacts of 2LoTD.

And not a link to be found anywhere.

Perhaps you haven't quite understood: It's not our job to prove your ideas correct.

You are going to have to do a whole lot better than, "you're wrong." Give us some science, dude! Tell us what the PhDs you get your information from says. You will be VERY hard pressed to find PhDs that agree with you on amino acids or thermodynamics.

He took your interpretation of 2LOT and followed it through to its obviously flawed conclusion. You've provided a meaningless list of names, and expect him to do likewise.

Where's the problem?

 

[gluadys]

Also, the earth may indeed be an open system, but the universe is a closed system. So your argument fails on two levels. However, the fact that 2LoTD works marvelously in an open system is the real reason what you have said cannot be true.

So, what you have to do is define the system. Yes, the universe is a closed system, but life does not occur everywhere in the universe. It only occurs on suitable planets (and maybe only on one planet).

So what you have to show is that entropy cannot decrease in these sub-systems even as it is necessarily increasing in the universe as a whole.

In short you have to distinguish between a closed system, which is sealed off from its surroundings and an open system which is open to its surroundings.

In an open system, such as earth, you can get decreases in entropy as long as the net entropy of the system and its surroundings increases.

You also have to consider the level of order which currently exists. If a system is highly ordered (low entropy), then it takes time for it to reach a state of high entropy. Going from one state to the other involves a flow of energy which can be captured to do work.

Not all of the energy is captured, but enough can be captured to build up an ordered sub-system within the closed system.

That is exactly what we see on earth. We have massive amounts of energy coming in from the sun. Yet all of that energy represents but a tiny fraction of the sun's energy. Most of the sun's energy is simply dissipating into space. So overall, the solar system complies with the 2LOT no matter how much work is done on earth.

Furthermore, only a part of all the solar energy that reaches earth is captured by various means to do work. So even on earth all the work done to build up ordered sub-systems is less than all the incoming energy and in totality the 2LOT is not infringed.

The physicist, Lee Smolin, puts it this way in the first chapter of his book The Life of the Cosmos.

The laws of thermodynamics are not in contradiction with the existence or the evolution of life. Not only is the existence of life compatible with thermodynamics, the two subjects are actually so intimately related that the clearest characterization of life I know of is one given in thermodynamic terms. That is because, once we understand what it means for a system to be in thermodynamic equilibrium, we can understand its opposite: what is required for a system to be out of equilibrium, as all living things are, for arbitrarily long periods of time.

Nothing can live in an environment in thermal equilibrium. If life is to exist there must be regions of the universe that are kept far from thermodynamic equilibrium for the billions of years it takes for life to evolve. We then want to ask, What is required of the universe so that it contains such regions? The answer to that question is easy. There must be things in the universe that are much hotter than the rest of it, and are able to maintain themselves as constant sources of light and heat for enormous periods of time. .... There must be stars. ~~from "The Life of the Cosmos" Oxford University Press 1997, pp. 28-29

As long as there is a tremendous disequilibrium between the heat of stars and the coldness of interstellar space, as long as a small portion of that heat and light can be captured and put to work by physical, chemical and biological processes, evolution is no contradiction to 2LOT, because whatever is happening in the small sub-system of a planet, the entropy of the overall closed system of the universe is still increasing as expected. It is only when the last star winks out and the whole universe has reached thermal equilibrium that evolution, and life itself, become impossible.