Why do so few creationist know the definition of "evolution"

[champuru]

Microevolution does indeed occur. But macroevolution does not. It goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong ), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals more with the spreading out or dispersal of energy attempting to work toward equilibrium, and entropy is a measure of such.

If entropy was really about disorder, zygotes couldn't form humans, water could not turn into ice crystals (snowflakes), and even microevolution couldn't occur because it is in itself more order.

Microevolution is just a part of macroevolution. After a period of time the tiny "micro" changes add up and the organism is so different it becomes a new species.

Here is an example (I hope this doesn't confuse you more). Lets take a male child for example. Over time he experiences change such as he grows larger, his voice changes, he grows facial hair. Each of these are "micro" changes but with them all combined he has changed on a larger "macro" level. Nobody could say that he is a child any longer. Evolution is basically the same thing over many generations instead of one life time.

 

[lucaspa]

The solar system is very far from being an isolated system, and really can't be treated as one for thermodynamics purposes. The solar system radiates large amounts of energy (essentially the entire output of the sun) into interstellar space, which can be approximated as a 3 K heat reservoir.

That doesn't affect the status as an "isolated system". I use the solar system because it does not receive significant energy from outside the solar system. Remember, an "isolated system" is the system and surroundings. The solar system is radiating energy into the surroundings -- interplanetary space. As you noted, a small fraction of that energy is intercepted by earth and a small fraction of that is used by the chemical processes of life to decrease entropy.

What you can do is calculate approximately how much entropy the earth receives via sunlight and how much it radiates away into space.

You can do that, but it's unnecessary. If you think the solar system is not isolated, the earth certainly isn't. As you noted, it's getting energy from the sun. As you noted, a small fraction of the photons from the sun are converted to sugars via photosynthesis. That decrease in entropy is more than made up by the increase in entropy of the entire output of photons from the sun.

We agree on the bottom line: there can be local decreases of entropy as long as the entropy of the entire system increases. Which is what happens whether you do your calcuations based on the planet or the solar system.

 

[lucaspa]

If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I'm wrong ), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals more with the spreading out or dispersal of energy attempting to work toward equilibrium, and entropy is a measure of such.

Techically, entropy is a measurement of the amount of energy available to do work (in the thermodynamic sense).

If entropy was really about disorder, zygotes couldn't form humans, water could not turn into ice crystals (snowflakes), and even microevolution couldn't occur because it is in itself more order.

All those can form because the entropy of the larger system is increasing while there is a local decrease in entropy. As just one example, the zygote is taking in food (sugar) and converting that to energy + CO2 + H2O. That is increasing entropy. A small fraction of the energy released is captured by ATP and used to decrease entropy in the growing embryo.

Think of yourself cleaning the garage. Think of how warm you feel (you may even perspire). The garage is decreasing in entropy (getting more ordered) but that heat you are releasing is an increase in entropy (random infrared radiation). So, if you look at both you, the atmosphere of the garage, and the contents of the garage: the contents are decreasing in entropy but the atmosphere has a greater increase in entropy due to the CO2 and H2O you expel plus the infrared radiation that increases the random motion of air molecules. That increase in entropy is greater than the decrease of entropy of the contents of the garage.

Is that clearer?

Microevolution is just a part of macroevolution. After a period of time the tiny "micro" changes add up and the organism is so different it becomes a new species.

Yep. Macroevolution is speciation.

Here is an example (I hope this doesn't confuse you more). Lets take a male child for example. Over time he experiences change such as he grows larger, his voice changes, he grows facial hair. Each of these are "micro" changes but with them all combined he has changed on a larger "macro" level. Nobody could say that he is a child any longer. Evolution is basically the same thing over many generations instead of one life time.

I applaud your effort and yes, small changes accumulate and result in large changes. Also, there is no clear cut line between micro and macroevolution. But you need a better example. The problem is that it is very difficult for people to think of evolution as applying to populations as it is, and your example equates changes in an individual with evolution. It perpetuates a misunderstanding that can be a fatal impediment to understanding evolution.

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

 

[champuru]

Techically, entropy is a measurement of the amount of energy available to do work (in the thermodynamic sense).



All those can form because the entropy of the larger system is increasing while there is a local decrease in entropy. As just one example, the zygote is taking in food (sugar) and converting that to energy + CO2 + H2O. That is increasing entropy. A small fraction of the energy released is captured by ATP and used to decrease entropy in the growing embryo.

Think of yourself cleaning the garage. Think of how warm you feel (you may even perspire). The garage is decreasing in entropy (getting more ordered) but that heat you are releasing is an increase in entropy (random infrared radiation). So, if you look at both you, the atmosphere of the garage, and the contents of the garage: the contents are decreasing in entropy but the atmosphere has a greater increase in entropy due to the CO2 and H2O you expel plus the infrared radiation that increases the random motion of air molecules. That increase in entropy is greater than the decrease of entropy of the contents of the garage.

Is that clearer?



Yep. Macroevolution is speciation.



I applaud your effort and yes, small changes accumulate and result in large changes. Also, there is no clear cut line between micro and macroevolution. But you need a better example. The problem is that it is very difficult for people to think of evolution as applying to populations as it is, and your example equates changes in an individual with evolution. It perpetuates a misunderstanding that can be a fatal impediment to understanding evolution.

"But we must ask, what exactly are these genera, families, orders, and so on? It was clear to Darwin, and it should be obvious to all today, that they are simply ever larger categories used to give names to ever larger clusters of related species. That's all these clusters, these higher taxa, really are: simply clusters of related species.

Thus, in priniciple the evolution of a family should be no different in its basic nature, and should involve no different processes, from the evolution of a genus, since a family is nothing more than a collection of related genera. And genera are just collections of related species. The triumph of evolutionary biology in the 1930s and 1940s was the conclusion that the same principles of adaptive divergence just described -- primarily the processes of mutation and natural selection -- going on within species, accumulate to produce the differences we see between closely related species -- i.e., within genera. Q.E.D.: If adaptive modification within species explains the evolutionary differences between species within a genus, logically it must explain all the evolutionary change we see between families, orders, classes, phyla, and the kingdoms of life. Niles Eldredge, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. pgs 76-77.

Thanks for all your corrections and help