What is Evolution?

[hamashiachagape]

I still don't see how that is relevant to your argument, I'll try to clarify what I was saying. Nothing we look at with regards to evolution was a closed system, unless we consider the entire known universe as our boundries. Therefore I am saying that any evolutionary process cannot have the second law of dynamics applied to it.

(P.S. how did Mallon know I was an engineer? I'm sure I haven't mentioned it.) Edit: re-read the post and realised that he wasn't talking about me, sorry

Your understanding is irrelevant, since Entropy applies to both closed and open systems. It can still be utilized to undercut Evolution as it is centered in Science, and does.

 

[Mallon]

Maybe not the Engineer as much, although he does have certain understandings that are relevant to some issues.

And the Pharmacist is foundationally centered in Biology.

But neither pharmacists nor engineers are involved in hypotheses testing, so they aren't scientists. That said, why should we trust what they have to say about science as opposed the ACTUAL scientists who study evolution in the lab and field? I'd sooner take the word of those who are getting their hands dirty and who deal with the data on a daily basis than some joe-schmoe who read a book once.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Yay. An engineer and a pharmacist -- scientists extraordinaire!

What is wrong with a Pharmacologist anyways?

 

[hamashiachagape]

But neither pharmacists nor engineers are involved in hypotheses testing, so they aren't scientists. That said, why should we trust what they have to say about science as opposed the ACTUAL scientists who study evolution in the lab and field? I'd sooner take the word of those who are getting their hands dirty and who deal with the data on a daily basis.

. You are quite arrogant to think you are the only one contributing to Science.

My friend has a degree in Biology too.

 

[Mallon]

What is wrong with a Pharmacologist anyways?

You said pharmacist, not pharmacologist. Which is it?

 

[hamashiachagape]

You said pharmacist, not pharmacologist. Which is it?

He is trained as a Pharmacologist. He has also participated in the field of Pharmacy.

 

[ciaphas]

Let's start at the top and do things properly

Your understanding is irrelevant,

I wasn't really talking about my understanding of the subject and don't really think this bit makes sense, if you could clarify what it means that'd be great.

since Entropy applies to both closed and open systems.

Entropy still has some relevence in open systems, but you can't say that it will increase in them so it can't be used as an argument against the increasing complexity of evolutionary design. Unless you state that the environment in which the evolution took place is a closed system (which I don't believe you think but if you do please correct me on this)

It can still be utilized to undercut Evolution as it is centered in Science, and does.

Yet again, I don't see the relevence. Both principles are widely known and accepted throughout the scientific community, you still haven't shown why one theory "undercuts" another.

Please try to address all of the points I bring up, they are done in a succinct manner so there is no need for you to skip over them.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Let's start at the top and do things properly

Your understanding is irrelevant,/quote]

I wasn't really talking about my understanding of the subject and don't really think this bit makes sense, if you could clarify what it means that'd be great.

Okay, basically, you're missing the point is what I"m saying.

Entropy still has some relevence in open systems, but you can't say that it will increase in them so it can't be used as an argument against the increasing complexity of evolutionary design. Unless you state that the environment in which the evolution took place is a closed system (which I don't believe you think but if you do please correct me on this)

I would say, it doesn't really matter what environment, closed or open, it took place. Entropy still applies, and Evolution does not pass this test.

Yet again, I don't see the relevence. Both principles are widely known and accepted throughout the scientific community, you still haven't shown whey one theory "undercuts" another.

PLease try to address all of the points I bring up, they are done in a succinct manner so there is no need for you to skip over them.[/

It has never occurred to you I guess to question whether Evolution is a true and sound reliable Scientific theory or not. Lets start with that.

A good book for that would be here - http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-Evolution-2-Jonathan-Sarfati/dp/0890513872

 

[Dark_Lite]

This thread is best answerable by a link: CF001: Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[hamashiachagape]

This thread is best answerable by a link: CF001: Second Law of Thermodynamics

Yeah I've been to Talk Origins a lot. I don't think they really understand what they are talking about. They don't even begin to touch Creation Ministries International's arguments.
An example, they don't allow for a function to allow Evolution to progress to the next stage within their understanding. See here -
"The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection" - we need to refer back to what types of changes are necessary for Evolution to occur.

Lets look here too - "entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases." This is an assertion that is being declared, but again, it would seem that professors are disagreeing with this understanding.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yeah I've been to Talk Origins a lot. I don't think they really understand what they are talking about. They don't even begin to touch Creation Ministries International's arguments.

Right...

They cite scientific literature and CMI .... probably quote mines?

 

[ciaphas]

Okay, basically, you're missing the point is what I"m saying.

As far as I was aware, your point was that evolution is a process in which new information is acquired which therefore increases complexity and breaches the second law of thermodynamics. I then was trying to show you how the second law of dynamics has not been breached.

If this isn't your major point then please put it down in a few short paragraphs (rather than really long links)

I would say, it doesn't really matter what environment, closed or open, it took place. Entropy still applies, and Evolution does not pass this test.

Right, if you look up the second law of dynamics (type it into google or wikipedia etc.) You will find that the requirement for energy to increase only applies to closed systems, it is one of the founding constraints of the theory.

In the words of wikipedia

stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time,

It has never occurred to you I guess to question whether Evolution is a true and sound reliable Scientific theory or not. Lets start with that.

I first learnt about evolution, it seemed to me to be a perfectly suitable mechanism for reaching the diversity of life we have today. Every peice of evidence I have seen against it has been extemely weak in comparison to the arguments for. I have never seen reason to doubt the theory any more than the other well accepted scientific theories that I have encountered.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Right...

They cite scientific literature and CMI .... probably quote mines?

I'd say, better to quote mine than to not apply sufficient footnotes to make adequate points, when these gentlemen clearly are not following a logical sequence within their presentations.

 

[hamashiachagape]

As far as I was aware, your point was that evolution is a process in which new information is acquired which therefore increases complexity and breaches the second law of thermodynamics. I then was trying to show you how the second law of dynamics has not been breached.

If this isn't your major point then please put it down in a few short paragraphs (rather than really long links)

Thats a different subject, known as Information Theory.

Right, if you look up the second law of dynamics (type it into google or wikipedia etc.) You will find that the requirement for energy to increase only applies to closed systems, it is one of the founding constraints of the theory.

]

And Wikipedia is wrong in this case. It does happen from time to time.

I first learnt about evolution, it seemed to me to be a perfectly suitable mechanism for reaching the diversity of life we have today. Every peice of evidence I have seen against it has been extemely weak in comparison to the arguments for. I have never seen reason to doubt the theory any more than the other well accepted scientific theories that I have encountered.[/

What have you seen against it?

And I began to believe in Evolution as a young kid. I held a billions of years perspective for a long time. It was the only Science I knew growing up. But I started thinking for myself, and saw the other side, which I had been laughing at. It eventually started to make more sense than I had thought originally.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'd say, better to quote mine than to not apply sufficient footnotes to make adequate points, when these gentlemen clearly are not following a logical sequence within their presentations.

Quote mining is not a complimentary term. It refers to the deliberate/non-deliberate act of taking quotes out of context to support a point that the original quote isn't saying. This is seen in a lot of creationist literature and arguments.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Quote mining is not a complimentary term. It refers to the deliberate/non-deliberate act of taking quotes out of context to support a point that the original quote isn't saying. This is seen in a lot of creationist literature and arguments.

This is a fairy tale understanding too. You should check this yourself.

In this case, it also happens to be the fallacy of sweeping generalization which is used by evolutionists. It is often alleged by Evolutionists, but it is not the case. I encountered this in a discourse I held once at Pandas Thumb, and it turned out that they were overstating their claims. The quote matched the original intent of what the person was trying to state. Its generalized by this community and overly so, because it usually does not happen. Much of the time, Evolutionists have not even begun to study Creation Science arguments. Many people fail to understand that Evolutionists simply do not have a sound and cogent Philosophical understanding much of the time.

 

[ciaphas]

Thats a different subject, known as Information Theory.

Right, we're slowly getting somewhere, we've now established what you didn't mean. Now can you (as I've asked several times) re-clarify what your complaint is. I don't really want to read through 6 pages of garbled posts again to try to establish what you were originally trying to put across.

And Wikipedia is wrong in this case. It does happen from time to time.

Yes, this does happen from time to time, but not this time. If it were wrong this time, it would also mean that my university's thermofliuds lecturers were mistaken, along with every text book given to any student reading the subject. If you want more sources do as I advised in that very post and google it. every page will say that a closed system is required.

What have you seen against it?

Mostly the standard arguments thrown around in these types of forums, I can't really remember specifics and they aren't worth going into now anyway.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Right, we're slowly getting somewhere, we've now established what you didn't mean. Now can you (as I've asked several times) re-clarify what your complaint is. I don't really want to read through 6 pages of garbled posts again to try to establish what you were originally trying to put across.

No, you don't understand the intent of the original posting. It was to point out two problems with Evolution.

Yes, this does happen from time to time, but not this time. If it were wrong this time, it would also mean that my university's thermofliuds lecturers were mistaken, along with every text book given to any student reading the subject. If you want more sources do as I advised in that very post and google it. every page will say that a closed system is required.

Thats elephant hurling. Is it possible that your textbooks were wrong? That happens a lot too.

Mostly the standard arguments thrown around in these types of forums, I can't really remember specifics and they aren't worth going into now anyway.[/

quote]

Any from a real Creation Scientist? I'm not talking Dr. Dino.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Refuting Evolution 2 -- chapter 3: Argument: Evolution is true science, not 'just a theory' - I found some information about Evolution for you too.

 

[ciaphas]

No, you don't understand the intent of the original posting. It was to point out two problems with Evolution.

We already established this, then I asked you to put a brief summary of what your problems are. It's no use continueing to tell me that you have problems without pointing out what they are.

Thats elephant hurling.

No it isn't, I have never found a widely used scientific textbook which states that the second law stands in non-isolated systems. To invalidate my argument you just have to find me some standard definitions of the second law of dynamics that disagree with what I stated.

Any from a real Creation Scientist? I'm not talking Dr. Dino.

I have looked through a few but cannot remember the names. Instead of moving off topic though you could try to explain to me why your issues with the theory are legitimate.