Page 2 of 9
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:04 am
by Avatar
Isn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics "Entropy always increases"? Not sure how you see that as contradicting evolution.
You draw a distinction apparently between micro- and macro-evolution, without explaining why. If you accept "micro-evolution", then whats the difference between that and "macro-evolution"? A matter of scale?
And as for the origin, Kin's earlier post made clear that evolution does not try to account for origination, only diversification.
No evidence of progression in fossils? I'll have to look that up, but i'm sure that's not so. The horse springs immediately to mind, several earlier "equine" versions have been found.
No evidence of a "transitional" species? Quite apart from the scientific aspect of this, (which I'm not qualified to comment on), it could be argued that all species are transitional.
Certainly, for example, hominid fossils have shown varying degree's of uprightness, with later specimens clearly having straighter thigh-bones, differently constructed ankle and knee joints, etc. If those aren't evidence of "transition", perhaps you'll explain what you consider such evidence would have to be in order to make it acceptable?
What about avian species? IIRC, several "versions" have been found, all the way from the clearly reptillian, through various stages of feather development, etc.
Hmm, no doubt, (and hopefully), Kin will be back to offer more scientific facts, as my own studies on the subject were both incidental and long ago.
--Avatar
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:47 am
by Loredoctor
dennisrwood wrote:Kin:
since science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data, why exclude creationism for not being observable when evolution can not be observed? since macroevolution would require an immense span of time to observe?
1) no one has observed evolution.
2) Darwin could not cite a single example of a new species originating, and neither has anyone else. no one has produced a species by the mechanism of natural selection.
3) no one understands how the mechanism of evolution works. it is still a mystery.
4) there is no fossil evidence. there has never been found a transitional species. most fossil specials appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for millions of years then disappear suddenly.
5) there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in actual fossil sequences.
6) the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts evolution. does this law only apply to isolated systems?
more questions later. thanks to Gary E. Parker ed.D and Henry M Morris PhD for the questions.
from the book What Is Creation Science?
1. wrong.
3. wrong.
4. wrong.
5. wrong.
6. do you know what entropy is?
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:51 am
by The Pumpkin King
That was quite clever, Loremaster!
I wish that someone would say something that I can disagree with, because, as Loremaster and I have previously discussed in PMs and such, my views on religion, creationism, and scientic study more-or-less reflect his.
Which is, in a way, why I've been a bit absent from the lovliness of the Think Tank and Close, 'cause I haven't been able to think of a single thing constructive to add in ages, despite my love of debate. Sorry guys!
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:06 am
by Loredoctor
Welcome back, PK!
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:14 am
by Avatar
Yeah, and "constructive" is in the eye of the beholder. Post anyway, and let
us decide what's constructive.
--A
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:18 am
by The Pumpkin King
Haha, I'll try to make an effort to post my views and such more often then! But, not at the moment, as it's 4:18 A.M. and my brain isn't calibrated properly for things like...well...thought.
In any case, I really have been dying for some debate on intelligent topics, because I don't seem to get much of it.
...And I just noticed that, in my last post, I absolutely
butchered the word "scientific." Ah, well.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:19 am
by Eugen Razvan
dennisrwood wrote:6) the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts evolution. does this law only apply to isolated systems?
Actually, it does not. A closed system, like the Earth, can gain order through energy - from the sun. That is how evolution allows progress.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:31 am
by The Pumpkin King
Mr Wickham wrote:dennisrwood wrote:6) the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts evolution. does this law only apply to isolated systems?
Actually, it does not. A closed system, like the Earth, can gain order through energy - from the sun. That is how evolution allows progress.
Which is also precisely why the Marxist belief that there is only a finite amount of wealth on Earth to be distributed is blitheringly false. There are vast amounts of untapped resources on Earth, and within our solar system, not to mention the ever-cycling field of nature (fueled by an outside source of its own--the sun) to draw upon, and so long as there are people to reach it, it can be gotten, and wealth can be made from it.
That's getting aside from the point though.
Thinking on an ecological scale, the Earth didn't always have the exact same climate as it does today. That's scientific fact. Without evolution and adaptation being scientific facts as well, life would have died millions of years ago due to simply being unable to handle the slowly morphing environmental qualities of our planet.
Everything about Earth is dynamic. Life, ecology, climate,
everything When you throw in a static factor into it all, one or more parts cease to make sense.
-----------------
And on a random note, it appears we have
two people with 18th century doughty Englishmen as their avatars now!
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:33 am
by Loredoctor
The Pumpkin King wrote:And on a random note, it appears we have two people with 18th century doughty Englishmen as their avatars now!
Uhhh . . . yes we do . . . uh yes.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:37 am
by Avatar
Two
people?
Good post Pumpkin King, not bad at all for so early (for you).
Hope you'll go back to joining us more regularly again. New voices are not only welcome, they're in demand.
--Avatar
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:42 am
by I'm Murrin
3) no one understands how the mechanism of evolution works. it is still a mystery.
Okay, now this is just plain wrong. The 'mechanism' of evolution is just so damned
simple there's
no way it could be considered a
mystery. Some animals live, some die, dependant on specific environmental and genetic conditions. If a genetic feature increases probability of survival, then simple mathematics is enough to tell you that this genetic feature is likely to spread and become more common. If it does, and becomes a shared feature of the entire species, then has that species not evolved? Extrapolation, mathematics again, shows that the larger the timescale, the more such changes in a species features are probable, the more widespread they could become, and the more dramatically different from the original creature this species could be.
Simple.
That genetic changes occur, and can both benefit or prevent survival, is known fact. Do you then discredit the rules of mathematics and probability?
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:08 pm
by Loredoctor
Murrin wrote:3) no one understands how the mechanism of evolution works. it is still a mystery.
Okay, now this is just plain wrong. The 'mechanism' of evolution is just so damned
simple there's
no way it could be considered a
mystery. Some animals live, some die, dependant on specific environmental and genetic conditions. If a genetic feature increases probability of survival, then simple mathematics is enough to tell you that this genetic feature is likely to spread and become more common. If it does, and becomes a shared feature of the entire species, then has that species not evolved? Extrapolation, mathematics again, shows that the larger the timescale, the more such changes in a species features are probable, the more widespread they could become, and the more dramatically different from the original creature this species could be.
Simple.
That genetic changes occur, and can both benefit or prevent survival, is known fact. Do you then discredit the rules of mathematics and probability?
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:39 pm
by Avatar
Good post Murrin, is what I think LM was trying to say there.
--A
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:40 pm
by Loredoctor
Avatar wrote: Good post Murrin, is what I think LM was trying to say there.
--A
You're just jealous I haven't used that smiley with any of your posts
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:17 pm
by wayfriend
Murrin wrote:3) no one understands how the mechanism of evolution works. it is still a mystery.
Okay, now this is just plain wrong. The 'mechanism' of evolution is just so damned
simple there's
no way it could be considered a
mystery. ... Do you then discredit the rules of mathematics and probability?
I would take issue with that comment. It is become accepted evolution dogma that "genetic drift" alone cannot explain the speciation of our world. There are time-table problems - speciation happens faster than genetic drift would suggest. There are combinatory problems - species have several traits in combination which, taken seperately, would result in a lethal trait, and genetic drift can't explain how they came about simultaneously. There are too many 'missing links' in evolutionary chains.
Finally, there is little evidence of any 'less fit' species running around at this time - genetic drift suggests that there should be some number of species who've taken the wrong evolutionary road and are in the process of becoming non-surviving as we speak. Where are they?
So, yes, evolution still contains many mysteries. The rules of mathematics and probably may in fact play quite a small part in the overall process.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:25 pm
by Kinslaughterer
Kin:
since science is based on observation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data, why exclude creationism for not being observable when evolution can not be observed? since macroevolution would require an immense span of time to observe?
1) no one has observed evolution.
2) Darwin could not cite a single example of a new species originating, and neither has anyone else. no one has produced a species by the mechanism of natural selection.
3) no one understands how the mechanism of evolution works. it is still a mystery.
4) there is no fossil evidence. there has never been found a transitional species. most fossil specials appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for millions of years then disappear suddenly.
5) there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in actual fossil sequences.
6) the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts evolution. does this law only apply to isolated systems?
more questions later. thanks to Gary E. Parker ed.D and Henry M Morris PhD for the questions.
from the book What Is Creation Science?
I should have started with a basic definition of evolution first, which is, evolution is the change in allele frequency over time. Sufficient change can result in speciation, where a new species is produced and will not or cannot mate with its parent species.
Anywho, to contest your statements...
[/quote]1. no one has observed evolution
1. Evolution has been and is observable. Mircoevolution looks at genetic changes in species over a "short" period of time-changes that prelude macroevolution. Microevolution is observed in single and multicelluar creatures, plants (Mendel's plant studies), fruit flies (this one you can do yourself) in the very short to the observance of the hamadryas baboons and olive baboon creating a new species over the last 80 years or so which hasn't been named yet but meets all the criteria. The often cited Galapagos finches (who have been continuely studied) show new beak types have emerged in the last twenty years and even more since Darwin's early study. Macroevolution is apparent in fossil studies and genetic testing. Since a span of 50,000 years is to large for us to study, hypotheses are tested by checking physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. As in the case of humans, we should see primates with gradually decreasing apelike features and more humanlike features emerge over a length of time and that is of course the case.
2) Darwin could not cite a single example of a new species originating, and neither has anyone else. no one has produced a species by the mechanism of natural selection.
I'm not sure how they even defend this...Numerous species have emerged naturally and through our own manipulation. For instance new breeds of plants, fruit flies, worms, and insects have been created, meanwhile the new baboon species I mentioned would contradict this. It would be difficult to witness a population in state of near speciation in the first place as it takes quite a while and you have to be able to observe numerous physical and behavioral characteristics. Simply, we need to observe more transistional species to show more examples then what we have now.
I'll hit the other questions later after class. Thanks for the discussion thus far.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:30 pm
by wayfriend
Kinslaughterer wrote:The often cited Galapagos finches (who have been continuely studied) show new beak types have emerged in the last twenty years and even more since Darwin's early study.
Suddenly something in
Gojiro (by Mark Jacobson) makes a bit more sense ... (Anyone else ever read that tremendous story? An interesting take on the nature of evolution.)
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:52 pm
by Edge
Personally, I could never take the leap of blind faith required to accept the theory of evolution.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:59 pm
by I'm Murrin
I see no need for blind faith, Edge. I see masses of supporting evidence and believable hypotheses. I support evolution because it is the one explanation that seems most realistic considering the evidence.
It's like most physics - the theory that appears to fit reality best is accepted until it is proven wrong.
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:17 pm
by Edge
I see no evidence, nor believable hypotheses.
I see only grasping at straws, out of prejudice against anything that would indicate some kind of higher power.
Despite equivocation about 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, I personally go with the explanation indicated by Occam's Razor.