|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 8/29/2008 4:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
This hasn't been done here for awhile. I'd love to see a great debate happen that doesn't descent into name calling. Let's keep to facts and logical arguments. Let the fun begin. Bob  |
Date: 8/29/2008 4:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
I’m just happy to get away from gay marriage and George Bush for once :D  |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 4:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
Thanks for the laugh DP. I thought this would heat up almost immediately and we would have a lively debate. I seem to have killed it for you. Sorry. |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 4:58:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Give it time, heh. ;) |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 5:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 53284
Before I go home to my dysfunctional computer where I can't respond, I'll ask one question. If Adam was the first man and Eve was cloned from his rib wouldn't their DNA be identical(except for the xy chromosome). If they then proceeded to have children and populate the planet wouldn't everyone's DNA be the same? So how do even minor differences in DNA get explained? Why do people have different color hair, eyes, skin color etc. Why do some people have genetic diseases? Why are there differences in peoples DNA? |
Date: 8/29/2008 5:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I haven't responded because I am not sure of your question: "Do you believe in evolution?" I think the concept of evolution is a viable one, but I just have to question where did the beginning of the evolutionary chain came from? I have always espoused the belief of "the evolution of Creation" and, believe that the reason that we all don't have the same DNA (in response to Bob's query) is because God flung Lucifer and his minions out of Heaven here to Earth and that intermingling resulted in, well, us. God Bless.  |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 6:24:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
I’m no scientist, Deb, but as I understand it, evolution is about a process. I know plenty of Christians who, for example, believe that the universe began with the Big Bang, but that the Big Bang was caused by God. Similarly, most Christians I know believe in evolution, but believe that it is either guided by God somehow, or that God intervened at a certain point to infuse a soul into man (I think this is something like the position of the late John Paul II). What you seem to be saying is that it’s not necessarily the case that accepting evolution means rejecting the idea that all life is created according to God’s will, in which case I agree. |
Date: 8/29/2008 6:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I do believe in evolution, yes. It's a fact, not a hypothesis. It has been proven on a small scale and has been observed in nature on a small scale (Darwin 's finches being a great example of this). I believe the anti evolutionist's main problem with evolution is the way it's explained. I've encountered a lot of people who give the argument "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Or people who believe that one night we were chimps, and the next we were humans. I think if people took the time to study how it works and to study our ancestral line they would better understand it and it would be easier for them to accept.  |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 6:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
On the note of Creationism: I've never believed in "Christian Science" Science is a thing for everyone. To have different sects of science fighting against one another instead of working together for better solutions or better hypothesis can only be counter productive. It's very acceptable to me that a Christian, for example, interpret the 7 day creation to be hundreds or thousands of years. God's time relative to Earth time, etc. Following that line, it's also easy to continue and realize that God could have created the species to evolve as they did. When I was a Christian this was how I felt. I never separated my theology and my scientific ideals. To me they always co-existed and I didn't see a problem with that. |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 7:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Sorry. I meant creation science, not Christian science. |
Date: 8/29/2008 7:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I believe in both Intelligent Design and Evolution. Not the Biblical 6 days, but I believe a God (or Gods<--gender neutral) were the original creators, and evolution went from there.  |
Date: 8/29/2008 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 62220
finches are all BIRDS-not a different animal, though. it's not like finches became dogs. do you ever see any half-animals? any half chimps and half humans? half ANYTHING? do you even see/or have they even FOUND any fossils that support evolution at all?? there's a reason why the missing link is still missing-it doesn't exist! people have different eyes/skin color/etc, are all because of breeding, climate adaptation, genes, etc....even if they DID descend from adam and eve, who may have been white or whatever. the major question i have is- if everything and everybody exploded into random, chaotic life, where did those building blocks come from??? who put those amino acids there?? you CANNOT have something from nothing. explain that to me.  |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 9:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
"people have different eyes/skin color/etc, are all because of breeding, climate adaptation, genes, etc" But...that's evolution. That goes back to my original point of lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution = small scale changes that add up over thousands of years. |
|
Date: 8/29/2008 9:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
"you CANNOT have something from nothing" Except God? |
Date: 8/29/2008 11:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 61901
Darwin believed that the various races were at different evolutionary levels, all distant from the apes, with ‘Blacks’ lower and ‘whites’ (Caucasians/Europeans) at the top. Read his work for yourself.  |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 1:02:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Hi Starlit B., you mind find this link helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Examples_of_transitional_fossils |
Date: 8/30/2008 1:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Evolution is more than change within a species; evolution is the process of generating increasingly-complex plant and animal species over time. I do not believe in evolution for several reasons: first, evolution violates established scientific law. If we consider the current Big Bang Theory, we must ask why an infinitesimally compact universe, held together by incredible gravity, suddenly flew apart. What force greater than such gravity overcame that stable situation? Also, beginning in the seventeenth century, a multitude of experiments have repeatedly verified that life comes only from life; yet, evolutionists insist that, at one time, life originated from non-living materials.  |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 1:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Second, strict adherents—such as Mr. Dawkins—minimize the complexity of even the simplest life. Texts about the origin of life are written to convey the impression that the transition between non-living chemicals and “life” was inevitable, given enough time. The error in this can be seen in the amount of effort and intelligence expended in efforts to create life today. “Simple” life is anything but simple. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 1:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Third, there is no suitable mechanism to move evolution forward. We are told that evolution progresses through natural selection and mutations. But, natural selection is merely a sieve that chooses which pre-existing characteristics will be passed on; it doesn’t explain how they initially arrived. Regarding mutations, estimates of “beneficial” changes in the DNA—changes that generate more complex organisms—occur once every 10,000 to 1,000,000 generations. The difference between chimps and humans, for example, has been calculated at 4%; chimps have 96% of the DNA we do. What is not mentioned is that this difference translates into some 120,000,000 distinct genetic differences that mutations would have to account for. How could there be enough time? |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 1:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Fourth, there are huge gaps in the fossil record that indicate no transitional fossils. If there were more than 100 million changes on the way from chimps to humans, we would expect more fossil remains documenting those changes. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 1:59:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Fifth, we are surrounded by the evidence of intelligent design. No one would rationally argue the faces of Mt. Rushmore were created by wind, water and temperature, though it could have happened. Yet, some of those same people forcefully defend the notion that living things, infinitely more complex than granite carvings, emerged by chance and time. |
Date: 8/30/2008 7:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
Here is my main problem. The basic law of physics is entropy. Yet, the basic law of biology is evolution. These laws contradict one another. How is that reconciled? I think it can be debated without religion even entering into the debate. But if anyone wants to make it a religious debate, I'm fine with that also. Scientifically, however, it seems like we are left with an entropic Universe that contains pockets of evolution.  |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 7:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
For those who may not know, entropy means things always tend to move from more complex to more simple. Evolution says they move from simple to complex. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
The bottom line is that there is no "proof" of evolution as a means of explaining how this world was formed and how life began once it was formed. Just as I present evidence of God's Existence, which the receiver of that evidence is free to ponder as to the veracity, so Dawkins can present this evidence of what Darwin termed 'evolution' and the receiver of this evidence is free to wonder. And Alfrowi points to some very salient points to wonder about. The evidence of evolution points to what PROOF? Certainly it doesn't point to a PROOF that there is "no God" as Dawkins attempts to sway. In other words, there is no empirical evidence, no experience on anyone's part, no historical record (mistaken or otherwise), to suggest that evolution is proof of anything other than evolution (def. the continuous modification of organic species; the steps in adaptation to environment). God Bless. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
Alfrowl: You use the old creationist argument of "It's here. It must have had a creator." But that isn't proof. That's nothing but guessing. You could just as easily say the creator was an advanced humanoid species and this is a digital world wherein we're all computer generated elements of some other creatures video game. How does one guess of the origin of life presume to take precedence over another? I am an agnostic simply for that reason. I cannot prove a God, and what creationists insist is proof is really nothing more than a leap of faith. I cannot prove a God, either, but as it stands I don't believe in one (I don't believe in th elack of one, either) because Occam's razor states that logically the more likely of the two scenarios would be the one with less variables. As for the length of evolution..well..the time it takes varies between species to species. I can't think of the animal right now but we've witnessed micro-evolution of a species which experiences multiple generations within a human's lifespan. The differing lengths of life combined with the incredibly changing climates and landscapes made for more than enough changes to occur in the time they did. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
I meant "I cannot disprove a God, either". |
Date: 8/30/2008 9:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Alfrowl: Evolution is biological, keep beating the strawman.  |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
ManOfAsgard: Go back and look up what system entropy applies to, because by your argument our weather system is also impossible. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 10:09:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Anyway entropy is a systems unusable energy. The second law of thermodynamics states the total entropy of a closed system tends to increase. If the earth or even your body was a closed system you'd be dead. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 10:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
I haven't stated anything is impossible. I have pointed out that entropy and evolution are opposites or at least reciprocals. And both are the fundamental basis of two different sciences. How is that debatable? it is simple fact. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 10:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
By your definition of entropy its opposed to most natural events. Chemical reactions, biological reproduction, etc. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 10:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
As long as there is an input of usable energy you're not going to see an increase in entropy. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 10:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Starlit.Bunni: Your comment doesn't make much sense, I can't tell whether you actually hold these misconceptions or you're being sarcastic. Birds aren't a specie, anyway what would you consider "half animals"? Feathered reptiles? Legged whales? The rest of your argument is just strawmans. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 7:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
I realize that some thermodynamicists attempt to clarify this conundrum by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” [C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)] |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 7:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms: “...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
" As long as there is an input of usable energy you're not going to see an increase in entropy. " Exactly. It IS debatable because of this fact, ManofAsgard. There is new information (energy) introduced into this system which allows for growth, for reproduction, for evolution, etc. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
So we see that living things "seem to violate" the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects. But tne second law ultimately does prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics? The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are: 1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity 2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down. Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
So again where is the debate? There has never, ever been a single case of entropy failing in the long run whether it is in an open or closed system. But like I said at first, there are "pockets" of evolution within the system which are at best temporal. In the long run entropy wins--Unless there is someone or something intelligently manipulating from outside the who;e system. I don't know if there is or not and that falls under religion which I won't debate because it cannot be proven one way or another. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I still don't see how evolution violates that law. All evolution is is minor changes throughout generations. If evolution as a whole violated that law then we wouldn't have different hair colour, eye colour, or skin colour. We wouldn't have Westerners who aren't Lactose Intolerant, and Asians who still are. We wouldn't have any new genetic diffrentiation at all. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 8:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
You re exactly right..it doesn't (cannot) violate the law. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 9:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
Entropy predicts that over time inherited genetic disorders will become more prevelent within a species and will eventually cause extinction. This prediction is confirmed by the fossil record and is contrary to the belief that genetic mutations lead to superior genetic organization, that is, evolution. Evolutionists argue that genetic mutatution plus natural selection has resulted in evolution. This leads us to the cosmological question: Is natural selection sufficient enough to overcome entropy? |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 9:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
I don't know the answer to that question, but people of Faith say they do. Their answer is an intelligent being who controls the whole thing. I don't know one way or the other about that but I guess I would like to believe it. If I choose to it will be based on faith, not on provable science. |
|
Date: 8/30/2008 9:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
Well in time certainly everything will succumb to entropy, so maybe we can just end all arguments with that:p |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 12:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"Entropy predicts that over time inherited genetic disorders will become more prevelent within a species and will eventually cause extinction." - Where did you get this definition of entropy? Entropy says nothing about genetics. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 12:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
The input of energy can over come entropy, by the sounds of it its not happening fast enough for you. The sun is losing energy, wait a billions of years and theres your entropy. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 1:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
When all the energy is used up and you can't see any signs of entropy then complain, its silly to invoke the entropy argument when the system is receiving outside energy. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 6:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
Dr. Henry Morris put it this way: "Not only does the Second Law point back to creation; it also directly contradicts evolution. Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order. Evolution requires a universal principle of upward change; the entropy law is a universal principle of downward change." H.M. Morris and G.E. Parker, What is Creation Science (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1987), p. 204. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 6:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
"its silly to invoke the entropy argument when the system is receiving outside energy." Thats a nice thought, but it unfortunately contradicts basically every reputable scientist' conclusions. Entropt applys to everything. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 6:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
"Classical thermodynamics... is the only physical theory of universal content concerning which I am convinced that, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts, it will never be overthrown." Albert Einstein, in M.J. Klein, "Thermodynamics in Einstein's Universe," Science, 157(1967): 509. (Cited in Wysong, p. 248.) "The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigation without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy." G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961), p. 87. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 6:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
To defend against the law of entropy evolutionists have taught many children and adults that "the earth is an open system, therefore the entropy argument doesn't apply." Often people already biased against creation and science then become close-minded and dismissive towards the entropy argument. This is unfortunate because this simplistic teaching reflects a distortion of the full entropy argument and warps the person's understanding of entropy in the real world. First of all, note that in the broad sense the evolutionary worldview does indeed refer to the entire universe, which can indeed be treated as a closed or isolated system. That is what Huxley's quote in question #1 says when it speaks of the "whole of reality." The basic Entropy law does indeed contradict this belief. Second, Creationists and scientists in general do indeed recognize that the earth is an open system. However, does that mean engineers can ignore entropy because as a practical matter all our manmade systems are open systems and we can therefore ignore the effects of entropy? Of course not. Entropy occurs in open systems as well as closed ones. It is simply not true, despite the frequent claims of evolutionists - some of whom really should know better - that the 2nd Law applies only to closed systems (see Gish, 1993, pp. 162-163, etc.). Dr. J. Ross of Harvard writes: "Ordinarily the second law of thermodynamics is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself." (Emphasis mine) Chemical and Engineering News, July 17, 1980, p. 40. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 6:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
People who rely on the "open system" argument need to acknowledge and understand that open systems are a necessary but by themselves insufficient requirement for complexity. Four Requirements for Complexity (Biological or Otherwise) in a System: 1. System Must Be Open 2. An Adequate Energy Supply Must be Available 3. Energy Conversion Tools/Mechanisms 4. Blueprint/Template/Control System Must Exist to Organize Converted Energy There is an element of precision which must exist among these components for the system to achieve reduced entropy. For example, for component #2 the energy available must be of the correct quality and quantity for the required output. An example of qualitative requirements would be a normal car engine. It needs gasoline to function and run the car up a hill, not diesel, natural gas, water, blood plasma, electricity, etc. And if 5 oz. of gasoline are required, a quantity of 3 oz. would fail to achieve the hill climb and the car would roll back down. Simply having some kind of energy, or some amount of the correct form of energy, does not guarantee anything. Next, energy conversion tooling must be correct for the reduced entropy output. For example, construction tools of the correct types are required to build a house, not kitchen appliances, mainframe computers, car engines, metal-forges, farming implements, mining equipment, etc. Simply having some sort of energy conversion going on does not guarantee anything. Lastly, blueprints must be specific and correctly matched with the energy and tooling for a reduced entropy output. If a certain protein molecule is to be constructed by a living cell, it will not be constructed by sections of DNA that code for non-protein molecules, or the wrong protein molecule. Without highly coordinated tooling, blueprints and correct energy inputs, entropy increases (sometimes dramatically) in an open system - it does not decrease. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 7:41:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Didn't Dr. Henry Morris advocate the shrinking sun hoax? Reputable scientist indeed. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 7:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
If this is what you think entropy is why aren't you attacking chemistry or geology? Its ridiculous that you're accusing "evolutionists" of trying to say entropy doesn't apply (or rather creationism's "entropy"). Your creationist quotes aren't even descibing Ludwig Boltzmann's entropy equation. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Your last post is just plain wrong, snow flakes and mineral cystrals are complex (more than their prior state )and I've pointed out our weather system, so where is the blue print for these complex systems? Increase in entropy doesn't mean increase in simplicity, "disorder" refers to Boltzmann's equation. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 9:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
you need to extend your reading to widen your view. Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases seemed to presuppose the reality of atoms and molecules, but almost all German philosophers and many scientists like Ernst Mach and the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald opposed their existence. During the 1890s Boltzmann attempted to formulate a compromise position which would allow both atomists and anti-atomists to do physics without arguing over atoms. His solution was to use Hertz's theory that atoms were "Bilder", that is, models or pictures. Atomists could think the pictures were the real atoms while the anti-atomists could think of the pictures as representing real atoms, but this did not fully satisfy either group. Furthermore, Ostwald and many defenders of "pure thermodynamics" were trying hard to refute the kinetic theory of gases and statistical mechanics because of Boltzmann's assumptions about atoms and molecules and especially statistical interpretation of the second law. Around the turn of the century, Boltzmann's science was being threatened by another philosophical objection. Some phyicists, including Mach's student, Gustav Jaumann, interpreted Hertz to mean that all electromagnetic behavior was continuous as if there were no atoms and molecules and as if all physical behavior was ultimately electromagnetic. This movement around 1900 deeply depressed Boltzmann since it could mean the end of his kinetic theory and statistical interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. After Mach's resignation in Vienna in 1901, Boltzmann returned there and decided to become a philosopher himself to refute philosophical objections to his physics, but he soon became discouraged again. In 1904 at a physics conference in St. Louis where most physicists seemed to reject atoms and he was not even invited to the physics section but was stuck in a section called "applied mathematics" he violently attacked philosophy, especially on allegedly Darwinian grounds but actually in terms of Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics that people inherited bad philosophy from the past and that it was hard for scientists to overcome such inheritance. In 1905 Boltzmann corresponded extensively with the Austro-German philosopher Franz Brentano in hope of mastering philosophy better apparently so that he could refute its presence in science better, but he became discouraged about this approach as well. In the following year 1906 his mental condition became so bad that he had to resign his position. He committed suicide in September of that same year. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 9:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 54444
also the fact that you see my view as an attack on evolution is ridiculous. I am an avid believer in evolution...but i like to view it from all perspectives not just a narrow view of one science. Entropy is a law that encompasses all sciences, including chemistry, chemistry clearly shows that entropy can be overcome in certain circumstances but these are very specific circumstances. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 9:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
And? |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 9:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
You're singling evolution out as something that contradicts entropy. How does it contradict entropy? Entropy is still occuring, and by definition in thermodynamics entropy is a systems unusable energy. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 9:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
By the way you're using entropy and complexity certain chemical and nuclear reactions shouldn't happen, such as nuclear fusion (hydrogen -> helium) and heavier elements. Nor should plate tectonics and the formation of complex geological features occur. Are these not examples of complexity from simplicity? |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 4:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
thanks for all the great comments guys. There are a few points that occur to me after reading the discussion, which I'llhopefully have time to make tomorrow. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Alfrowl – “first, evolution violates established scientific law. If we consider the current Big Bang Theory, we must ask why an infinitesimally compact universe, held together by incredible gravity, suddenly flew apart.” As I understand it, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the former explains how changes occur between different generations of living things, while the Big Bang seeks to explain the origin of the universe. “Also, beginning in the seventeenth century, a multitude of experiments have repeatedly verified that life comes only from life; yet, evolutionists insist that, at one time, life originated from non-living materials.” Again, I don’t see what abiogenesis, which is the study of how organic life could emerge from nonorganic matter, has anything to do with how exactly that life develops and evolves. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but your first and second objections seem to consist in confusing evolution with questions of the origins life of itself, which is not a question evolution claims to answer, as far as I am aware. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Your third objection is more technical in nature, and one I’m not qualified to answer. So I googled it ;) I got this: http://www.didmancreategod.com/Chapter_excerpts/Ch%206%20Not%20enough%20time%20for%20evolution.html Don’t ask me what it all means, but I assume you understand it. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
“Fourth, there are huge gaps in the fossil record that indicate no transitional fossils. If there were more than 100 million changes on the way from chimps to humans, we would expect more fossil remains documenting those changes.” – I assume of course, that you understand that it is not the case that (according to the theory of evolution) modern man evolved from the modern chimpanzee, rather, we share so much DNA because we evolved from a common ancestor. With that in mind, if you are claiming that there is a lack of fossil evidence, from what I can see there appear to be plenty of fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:32:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
“Fifth, we are surrounded by the evidence of intelligent design. No one would rationally argue the faces of Mt. Rushmore were created by wind, water and temperature, though it could have happened. Yet, some of those same people forcefully defend the notion that living things, infinitely more complex than granite carvings, emerged by chance and time.” The problem with this is that it begs the question of who created the creator? Not only that, but there are several examples which indicate that if some intelligence designed life on this planet, it didn’t do a very good job of it. Some examples: “The grasping reflex in human babies would only seem to make sense if we used to have rather more body hair, like other primates. It appears a rather pointless design otherwise” “Sexual reproduction is not anywhere near '100%': most copulation is inefficient and fails to produce viable offspring. Why are millions of sperm required? Good design, or merely adaptive?” “Between four to seven weeks of development, we humans have a tail. It is later reabsorbed. Not only that, but we share with mice (in whose genome they've been found) the same tail-making genes. It appears that there is a separate mechanism controlling the tail's apoptosis (qv), so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned. Erm, special genes to remove something we're not supposed to have?” These are just some examples from the human body, there are plenty of others noted from various other animals. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:39:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Man of Asgard – “Here is my main problem. The basic law of physics is entropy. Yet, the basic law of biology is evolution. These laws contradict one another. How is that reconciled?” I don’t see where the contradiction is? The principle of entropy no more contradicts evolution than it contradicts the notion of a tiny seed growing into an enormous tree. Though I admit my understanding is limited, from what I remember it is the case that entropy only triumphs in a closed system. Since Earth is not a closed system the energy it takes for life to grow an evolve is “balanced” if you like, by the energy we receive from our Sun. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:45:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Deb - “The bottom line is that there is no "proof" of evolution as a means of explaining how this world was formed and how life began once it was formed.” As I said above, I don’t think these are the kinds of questions evolution is attempting to answer. I do think evolution can be relevant to a debate about God in the sense that it accounts for the apparent suitability of creatures to their environments, without the need of resorting to a supreme intelligence. Evolution attempts to explain why organisms have developed in the way they have. Dawkins, as an intelligent atheist, would never attempt to suggest that anything “proves” the nonexistence of God, though he may very well use evolution as a plank in an argument to demonstrate that God of the Bible (or similar versions) is not necessary for the world to appear the way it does. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 8:47:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
This is not to suggest that many conceptions of God are necessarily incompatible with the theory of evolution. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 10:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
Creationists and scientists in general do indeed recognize that the earth is an open system. However, does that mean engineers can ignore entropy because as a practical matter all our manmade systems are open systems and we can therefore ignore the effects of entropy? Of course not. Entropy occurs in open systems as well as closed ones. It is simply not true, despite the frequent claims of evolutionists - some of whom really should know better - that the 2nd Law applies only to closed systems (see Gish, 1993, pp. 162-163, etc.). Dr. J. Ross of Harvard writes: "Ordinarily the second law of thermodynamics is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself." I already cited this and do do here to emphasize it. But I don't like being redundant so I'll stave off here. I'm a reader not a scientist, and I have to yield to authorities like Gish and Ross and many others who make the same claims. I am not anti evolution, but why is it necessary to defend it with inappropriate and false statements? Evolution seems true and so does entropy, and like hot and cold they appear to be reciprocals. But in the LONG RUN entropy prevails--like when the sun dies and can no longer energize life on earth. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 10:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
Excellent post DP |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 11:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Nanaki, thank you for your response of 8/30/2008 8:50 AM. I believe you have expressed my point from another perspective. Design implies a designer. I happen to believe it is God; though I acknowledge the possibility the designers could have been an advanced humanoid species. [I’m not convinced of the digital world idea, yet.] The essence of our scientific process is that what we observe strongly indicates—not proves—there was a remarkable intelligence involved. Furthermore, our frame of reference scarcely allows us to consider anything of complexity as arriving any other way than through purposeful design…except in the case of evolution, where we willfully suspend what we’ve observed in favor of an anti-supernatural bias. That bias pushes us to conclude it is safer to believe in an extremely unlikely process than in one with merit. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 11:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
RodTod, thank you for your response. It was not my intent to deliberately misrepresent the evolutionary position; space demanded concise brevity. If evolution is true, it required chemistry before it required biology, and physics before chemistry. I thought it best to approach the topic at its beginning. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 11:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Dark Phoenix, thank you for your responses. As I mentioned to RodTod in reply to his 8/30/2008 9:46 AM comment, before evolution was primarily biological, it was entirely chemical. As taught by evolutionists today, there was a time when life did not exist. In a primordial soup of chemicals and amino acids, fueled by the energy of the earth and sun, countless reactions occurred, eventually leading to an organism able to replicate itself. From that point, evolution became increasingly biological. Though possibly initially intended by Darwin to explain the diversity of life, evolution has—well, evolved—into a cosmological framework. I perhaps should have made that clearer. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 11:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
I checked the website you mentioned; “didmancreategod.com” and read the excerpt from chapter 6. Thank you for your kind words, but I didn’t understand much of the technical language either. The author seems to believe that helpful changes occur much more rapidly than I mentioned. This would explain diversity within a species, but I don’t think it suffices for “true evolution,” that is, changing from one species to another. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 11:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Regarding fossils: you are correct; there are plenty of fossils, nearly all of them easily categorized. The point I tried to make was that there is a conspicuous absence of fossils that identify changes as one species was evolving into another. Thank you for the reminder about the common ancestor of chimps and humans. |
|
Date: 8/31/2008 11:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Regarding your final comment of 8/31/2008 8:32 PM: The question of who created the Creator is beyond the scope of science. Scientific inquiry should accurately describe and explain what is observed, categorize it, and verify it. Hypothesizing that the design of something implies intelligence should be as far as pure science goes. Beyond that, professional speculation should be reserved for the meta-physicists and theologians. Trouble arises when academics step outside the limits of their professions. Thanks for all your thoughtful responses. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 12:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
alfrowl: Why should the evolutionary theory explain areas its not intended to? Neither gravity nor plate tectonics explain the origin of the universe why should evolution (which only deals with already existing life)? |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 9:28:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
RodTod, thanks for your response. I believe you understand my point: since the publication of The Origin of Species, evolutionary theory has steadily expanded into fields not envisioned by Darwin. The premise for this growth is simple: if life is constantly changing, the environments enabling that life must also be changing. Therefore, Earth had a very different atmosphere three and a half billion years ago for life to develop from non-living materials. The next sets of logical questions address the origins of the Earth, the galaxy and ultimately, the universe. My inclusion of the Big Bang stems from scientists’ curiosity regarding Cause and Effect; the evolutionary framework is currently applied to most—if not all—fields of study. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 11:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
No doubt theories improve over time, and evolution has expanded with the discovery of genetics and microbes, still it only applies to biological organisms. It neither explains the origin of the universe or of life nor is it intended too. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 11:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
If the atomic theory is correct where did the universe come from in order for atoms to exist? If the tectonic theory is correct where did the universe come from in order for the plates to exist? You can do this with nearly any theory, however it seems to be only the evolutionary theory, the big bang theory and the abiogenesis hypothesis that get perverted into some mess. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 11:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"The evolutionary framework is currently applied to most—if not all—fields of study." - Since when? Evolution is a generic word that means change, the word can be used in most fields of science and non-science. That doesn't mean adding the word evolution suddenly implies the evolutionary theory is even related. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 11:50:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 19613
Thanks for all the replies. Nice to have a discussion that’s a bit different once in a while in the debate section. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 12:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
What a coincidence that after leaving this page I found this :http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828162604.htm I thought you guys might find it interesting. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 10:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
RodTod, thanks for your responses. Though I think I understand what you’re saying, I believe you misinterpret “evolution.” Evolution is more than “a generic word that means change;” it is an educated attempt to explain how living organisms increase in complexity over time, giving the diversity of life we see today. Some would point to examples similar to Nanaki’s mention of the marine stickleback losing its bony lateral plates over the past 20,000 years as an evidence of evolution; strictly, it is not. The changes in the fish are the result of natural selection, where a change in the environment generates adaptations within a species. Although the stickleback has changed, it has not evolved: it remains—easily identifiable—as a marine stickleback. Technically, the limitation of evolution to biology is correct. However, if we consider that the sciences strive to account for the apparent increase in complexity of their objects of study, “evolutionary” is an apt choice of wording. |
|
Date: 9/1/2008 10:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Nanaki, thanks for the website! |
|
Date: 9/2/2008 2:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
How am I misinterpreting the word "evolution"? In the evolutionary theory it means traits being passed to the descendants that aid in survival, however you brought up other fields of science. |
|
Date: 9/2/2008 2:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Survival doesn't always mean complexity. |
|
Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
Alfrowl: It IS evolution. Though that change is relatively minor in that you can still easily identify the fish, most of the evolutionary changes will be small. It's the accumulation of many many different genetic abnormalities or mutations over many generations that change animals greatly. Perhaps if that species of fish continues on for a long time in other changing environments, its changes will add up so greatly that you WOULDN'T be able to identify it as our (today's) stickleback fish. |
|
Date: 9/2/2008 2:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
RodTod, thanks for your response. By the consensus of many scientists, evolution must eventually produce increasingly complex living systems. True, advantageous traits are passed on, but complexity must also increase to provide diversity of life. The theory of Evolution requires life to become increasingly complex. [If you are aware of an example where evolution is thought to generate plants or animals of less complexity, I am interested.] True, survival of a given species does not mean complexity; survival of the theory of evolution does. |
|
Date: 9/2/2008 2:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Nanaki, thanks for your response. The “accumulation of many…different genetic abnormalities or mutations over many generations” must eventually produce an organism that is not a stickleback fish. Such a transformation would be evident for some species somewhere. Yet, given the tremendous number of abnormalities required to change one organism into another and the nearly total absence of fossil evidence such changes occurred, it is my opinion they did not occur. Insistence they did, in the absence of evidence, is blind faith. |
|
Date: 9/2/2008 4:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
alfrowl: I'd be interested in seeing a credible source for this claim that evolution *requires* complexity. |
|
Date: 9/2/2008 4:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
You realise there are more than one species of stickleback fish? |
|
Date: 9/4/2008 2:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
RodTod, thanks for your response. I offer some sources for your consideration. 1) “The science of evolution seeks to understand the biological forces that caused ancient [another word for “simple”] organisms to develop into the tremendous [another word for “complex”] and ever-changing variety of life seen on Earth today.” [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554675/Evolution.html] 2) “According to what paleontologists…and other scientists can deduce, over the course of three billion years life-forms evolved from extremely simple self-replicating carbon-based molecules to single-cell organisms…The more visible or ‘exciting’ part of evolution, with the proliferation of species that produced the dinosaurs and (much later) humans, took place in the past billion years.” [http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution] 3) “1. the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation 2. the sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.” [http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Evolution] 4) “Biology, in contrast, uses the term evolution a bit more specifically. At its most basic, evolution in biology can be used to refer either to the change in the gene pool of a population over time or to the concept of descent with modification.” [http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/definition.htm] 5) “The process by which one type of organism changes, over an extended period of time, into another type of organism. The two main components of biological evolution are genetic mutation and natural selection.” [http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurglossary/g/evolution.htm] 6) “Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)…Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.” [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml] I think these will do to illustrate my point. Honestly, I was surprised more sources did not mention the aspect of ever-increasing complexity. At the risk of sounding self-serving, I believe the idea is inherent in any and every biological definition, unless we assume one-celled organisms are as complex as humans. |
|
Date: 9/5/2008 1:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Most the sources you list describe evolution as "Descent with modification.", that includes increase, decrease and change of genetic material. Many "anti-evolutionists" are too hung up on complexity. |
|
Date: 9/5/2008 10:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
RodTod, thanks for your response. I am one of those anti-evolutionists “too hung up on complexity.” I can understand why people conclude evolution is working when variations occur within species, as in the case of the marine stickleback mentioned earlier. However, for the theory to be universally tenable, there must be an explanation and demonstration of how “more complex systems”—for lack of a better term—arose. At some point, single-celled organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms and then into plants and creatures with highly-specialized capabilities. This is why I maintain evolution requires a general increase in complexity, and why some are convinced evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. |
|
Date: 9/5/2008 11:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
In order to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics biological systems need to receive no input of usable energy and still continue to work. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
Other Cool Sites:
demo.teenbookreviews.com
demo.weirdmysteries.com
demo.myusm.com
demo.totallywhacked.com
demo.ahez.org
demo.topsellingrealtor.com
demo.thecommunitywatch.com
demo.bestbuybizguide.com
demo.teenbookreviews.com
demo.child-connection.com
Awesome Free Web Graphics
Favorite Grapic Quotes
Greetings in Glittery Text
Your name in Glittery Text
www.thehomebusinessindex.com
www.diet-food-weightloss-health.com
www.investingandinvestments.com
www.cancerinformationworld.com
www.datinglovematchmaking.com
www.creditinformationworld.com
www.insurancelinksdirect.com
www.ilovemysteries.com
www.casinopokergambleing.com
www.make-money-while-sleeping.com
www.vacation-travel-cruse-deals-information.com
.
