Why evolution doesn't work.

[Smilin]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
Need I say more?  Many of the above fradulent pieces of evidence are still taught in the classroom today even though evolutionists know that they can no longer be considered as evidence.  Evolution is a political agenda, not science.  2-0 Creation.

yes..you could say more.. you could comment on selective reduction, selective reproduction, hybrids & hybrid speciation, & adaptation to just name a few.  Do you claim these processes don't work as well?

As far as a political agenda.. what politican(s) made it an agenda?  You made that statement... now back it up.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by SerialCoder
I'm in! Where do i sign up? Do I get to wear a hat?

/me hands SerialCoder his honorary 'Tin Foil Hat'

 

[Micaiah]

G'day,

I had a look at your link on the Paluxy man tracks. I watches a video the other night on the Paluxy man tracks, with discussions by those who have been to the site. They say that the tracks are (were) so disctinct you could see the prints of the toes. Some tracks were evidently made by someone wearing moccasins, and they were able to see prints of the thread used to sew the moccasins together. There is are big differences in the way people are representing the facts.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I had a look at your link on the Paluxy man tracks. I watches a video the other night on the Paluxy man tracks, with discussions by those who have been to the site. They say that the tracks are (were) so disctinct you could see the prints of the toes. Some tracks were evidently made by someone wearing moccasins, and they were able to see prints of the thread used to sew the moccasins together. There is are big differences in the way people are representing the facts.

Okay, I'm not sure what side you are supporting here. Nevertheless, were "they" paleontologists? If not, their comments are nill compared to actual, professional paleontologists who have investigated the site and found that what was originally publicized by a minister to be "man-tracks" were actually made by three-toed dinosaurs.

 

[Micaiah]

G'day,

I saw a video recently of the Paluxy River tracks. The scientist stated those investigating could see the prints of the epidermus in the tracks, and the stitching of moccasins worn by those who made the tracks. It would be hard to interpret these as parts of dinosaur tracks.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Rising Tree
WOW this thread grew like lightning last night.

MSBS: Creationists might not use the 2nd Law because evolutionists have attempted to refute it...incorrectly, I might add.  The latter do not understand that they are referring to its underlying principle, which is a fundamental tenet of the universe.

The latter are much more likely to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics then the former, as the latter will have likely studied at least basic physics. Anyone trying to use the 2nd law of thermodynamics this way obviously has never studied it at all.

The law states Entropy, in a closed system, always increases. Axiomatic to this is that there are no closed systems, unless one takes the universe as a whole. The earth is constantly receiving energy from an external source (you know that really big yellow thing we see most every day called the sun)-- it isn't a closed system. We constantly see things going from a disorganized state to a more organized state. For example, you were once a single cell, you are now a full grown human. If the 2nd law of thermodynamics was what you are trying to make it, this would be imposible-- not only would evolution be imposible, but life itself would be imposible, nothing could grow. This entire argument makes creationists looks like fools because it only flaunts your ignorance.

 

[seebs]

*sigh*. Let me guess, the video was done by everyone's favorite guy, Kent Hovind?

 

[Micaiah]

Oops,

Did a double post. Sorry. THough I'd lost it.

I guess the point is that sometimes we get some very different stories.

 

[Micaiah]

I noted a post that was made previously. It seemed to query the link between the 2nd law and order/disorder.

Please show me where order and disorder are defined in the Second Law.

I was also unaware of the connection.

The following post from http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp#first may help to clear this question up.

Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
This is the essence of Classical Thermodynamics. Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy)—and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).

Christians argue that the notion of evolution contradicts this law. Natural systems do not go from the simple to the complex, from the disordered to the ordered. Natural systems always follow the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by Micaiah
Christians argue that the notion of evolution contradicts this law. Natural systems do not go from the simple to the complex, from the disordered to the ordered. Natural systems always follow the second law of thermodynamics.

No, creationists argue this based on a misunderstanding a basic science. Many christians have a better understanding of this and would never make such an argument. It's a sign of how bad off creationism is when you have to resort to rhetoric that distorts the basic laws of physics and order to support your dogma.

 

[chickenman]

well natural systems are constantly going from disorder to order - your set of chromosomes, which is a very ordered and complex set of molecules - has been duplicated millions of times since you were born

the creationist application of the 2nd law to information theory isn't recognised by science

 

[chris_norwood]

Originally posted by MSBS
The law states Entropy, in a closed system, always increases. Axiomatic to this is that there are no closed systems, unless one takes the universe as a whole.

Okay, let's do that. Where would you say that the energy to get the whole shebang going came from? If you go back far enough, the second law does seem to hinder the arguments of evolutioninsts and atheists. In order for the universe to ever begin there must have been something "outside" that dumped in the energy required to overcome entropy.

And concerning RufusAtticus:

You definitely make some excellent arguments. But take for instance the Foraminifera example you used. After supposedly 66 million years of evolution, you can see the gradual change of a one plankton into... yes, ladies and gentlemen, a plankton. There are obviously some differences in the shape and maybe even the way the "newer" plankton lived, but all that this supports is lateral evolution (adaptation within an organism without truly changing the nature of that organism). After that much time, shouldn't the plankton have become something more than just a plankton?

I have some scientific background (a BS in chemistry/biochemistry with quite a bit of emphasis on Molecular Biology and genetics), and as far as I know and have encountered, there is no real evidence of anything greater than lateral evolution. To believe that a little single-celled organism became some simple worm, which became a fish, which became a lizard, which then eventually became a mammal and then a human is a process that simply has no evidence to support it. Ultimately, a hypothesis must still be made based on scant evidence and a whole lot of assumptions. In my mind, belief in evolution requires faith in human logic just as much as belief in creationism requires faith in God. I choose to believe in God, and I just wish that the schools would not teach the scientific/intellectual beliefs to children as if they were undeniable facts.

 

[chickenman]

big bang does not = evolution

okay?

if you have a BSc in chem/biochem and have studied genetics, i'm wondering how you can say that theres no evidence to support macroevolution - I also have the same qualifications with a major in genetics and I think that there is overwhelming evidence for common ancestry

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by chris_norwood
Okay, let's do that. Where would you say that the energy to get the whole shebang going came from? If you go back far enough, the second law does seem to hinder the arguments of evolutioninsts and atheists. In order for the universe to ever begin there must have been something "outside" that dumped in the energy required to overcome entropy.

OK...and this is hindering evolution how? In there here and now, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not prevent order coming from disorder. It happens all of the time. It just requires energy to be input into the system.

As for your question about cosmology, I have no idea. Why not start another thread on the big bang (term coined by Sir Fred Hoyle BTW) so you can discuss it? This thread is supposed to be about evolution isn't it?

 

[Micaiah]

G'day chris_norwood,

Thanks for your comments and welcome to the forum. I'm pretty new to this one also.

chickenman

Do you have any examples of mutations that result in an increase in the complexity of the original life form. To me that is the evidence required to support evolution from a single cell to a human.

In response to other comments, the growth of living things does apparently contradict the 2nd law. But living things have special components on board that are able to take energy and convert them into the bits necessary for growth. A solar powered car has panels and engines to convert the suns energy into usable power.

 

[chickenman]

duplication mutations - they increase complexity, and theres good evidence that there were large genome wide/ chromosomal duplications in our evolutionary past

 

[Orihalcon]

1. bacterial conjugation. some species of bacteria conjugate instead of binary fission to reproduce. you could call it basic sex.

2. sponges. the lowest form in the class of animalia, i think. basically a multi-celled animal, but it is really a large group of cells. they just stuck together and also created a little skeleton for themselves to stay stuck together.

little changes.

 

[Micaiah]

More of the same thing isn't necessarily increased complexity.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I have some scientific background (a BS in chemistry/biochemistry with quite a bit of emphasis on Molecular Biology and genetics), and as far as I know and have encountered, there is no real evidence of anything greater than lateral evolution.

I'm glad to see you can appreciate Rufus' comments. They strongly refute the premises of the opening post of this thread, using basic facts. (Great post Ruf!)

As to evidence of anything "greater" than "lateral" evolution (though you have defined neither term well),

reptile(synapsid) - mammal transitional fossils:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

You might want to also read this article. It approaches many of the separate lines of evidence for common descent:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

After you read those two, you won't be thinking there is a lack of evidence for all but "lateral" evolution, unless you have a strange idea of "lateral" indeed!

If you go back far enough, the second law does seem to hinder the arguments of evolutioninsts and atheists. In order for the universe to ever begin there must have been something "outside" that dumped in the energy required to overcome entropy.

Of course, none of this is even remotely relevant to the issue of evolution, but I still would like to point out that you are assuming that the universe didn't start with the same amount of energy that exists within it now. If it did, then there was never any violation of the 2LoT. (That's second law of thermodynamics, not Lord of the Rings 2: the Two Towers )

Ultimately, a hypothesis must still be made based on scant evidence and a whole lot of assumptions.

You have accurately described the state of most hypotheses at their inception. Indeed, you describe the state of evolutionary theory during the time of Darwin's musings on the Beagle.

Still, over time the theory has been confirmed by overwhelming evidence, though it had to be modified on some relatively minor points.

In my mind, belief in evolution requires faith in human logic just as much as belief in creationism requires faith in God.

All science requires faith in human logic. Without human logic you cannot use evidence to evaluate an hypothesis. For instance, with logic:

Hypothesis: water is a compound.
Logical statement: If a) water can be separated into more than one element, then b) water is a compound.
Test: Electolysis successfully separates water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Conclusion: Premise a) is true, therefore, premise b) must be true.

Without logic:
Hypothesis: Water is a compound
Test: Electrolysis successfully separates water into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Conclusion: Electrolysis might successfully separate water into peanuts.

and I just wish that the schools would not teach the scientific/intellectual beliefs to children as if they were undeniable facts.

Does this go for gravity and other "deniable" facts that science has to offer, or is this a case of special pleading against evolution?

 

[Jerry Smith]

More of the same thing isn't necessarily increased complexity.

Hi, and welcome.

If you will define "information" and stick to that definition, then we will show either that:
a) evolution doesn't require an increase in "information" or
b) there is a mechanism for increasing "information."

Which it will be will depend on how you choose to define "information." The only rule is no switching back and forth between different definitions of the word. Define the word in the way that you think it has meaning for the discussion and be willing to stick to that definition, please!