How many here believe in evolution?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by mrfish
and ps hortlund, the laws of physics are like my babies, please stop abusing them.
 

Humor me mrfish, have the second law of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong? Has there even been an observation that might indicate that there might be exceptions to that law?

[Hortlund]

Another thing mrfish, where did the first protein come from according to your scientific theorys?

[Thrawn]

Cripes, I don't think so, at least not literally, then again I'm not a Christian.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by mrfish
so you dismissed that part of the bible and came up with a more elegant theory of your own then? so why are you a christian if you don't believe the book? what's your creationist theory based on - a strong hunch?

There are many interpretations of the bible. Many disagree as to what should be taken literally or metaphorically.

The six days of creation as stated in Genesis could easily have been describing an evolutionary period over millennia.

Maybe it's my need for understanding or sense of purpose but it makes more sense to me to believe that there is something intelligent beyond our observation and understanding that created time and space rather than that it just is/was.

[LoneStarBuckeye]

A bird's feather is an amazingly intricate and complex mechanism, as, I suspect, any ornithologist will attest.

Regarding archaeopteryx, do you contend that its feathers were the result of a single, beneficial mutation?  To me, that seems entirely implausible.  I would imagine that to evolve feathers from reptilian scales would require a number of less dramatic mutations, each with some benefit to the creature, in order to survive the process of natural selection.

Where are the multiple variants with something between reptilian scales and feathers?

- JNOV

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by -dead-
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."Gould, S.J.

But that is the entire point. There are no transitional forms.

It becomes pointless if you want to argue that there are transitional forms "between larger groups". For example, someone claims that the axchepoluys (yeah, I know I spelled it wrong) is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. But the problem is that there were birds before the axchepoploulys. It is clear then that the evolution from dinosaurs to birds was not
dinosaur -> axcopopulous -> bird.

In fact it seems to be more like
dinosaur ->dinosaur
bird -> bird
axcoipolopus->axciopolus

Axcopoluoys is simply a species of its own. But it fits to place it between dinosaur and bird, simply because it looks like half bird, half dino. It is kinda like that Australian abomination with that I forgot the name of right now which looks like a weird collision between a duck and a beaver. I mean, no one claims that that animial is the transitional form between beavers and ducks, but  100 000 000 years from now, when the scientists look at the fossil record they'll go "yes, the link between birds and mammals, finally".

[Kanth]

Not only is the second law of thermodynamics not applicable to evolution but this whole statement is terribly arrogant.

Hortlund, I hope you copied this from somewhere and pasted it in as devil's advocate.

Originally posted by Hortlund

2)
In thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution with regard to heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.

Or in other words:
All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.

Evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.  Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
 

[midnight Target]

In simple terms (even a lawyer could understand) the 2nd law applies to a closed system. This implies no external energy is added... like sunlight or heat or volcanic dust or... use your imagination.  

The Earth is NOT a closed system as much as you or the Creationist site you quoted from would like it to be.

[Kanth]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

there are.

I like horses so you get horse evolution. If you don't like it, lump it =)

Originally posted by Hortlund
But that is the entire point. There are no transitional forms.

It becomes pointless if you want to argue that there are transitional forms "between larger groups". For example, someone claims that the axchepoluys (yeah, I know I spelled it wrong) is a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds. But the problem is that there were birds before the axchepoploulys. It is clear then that the evolution from dinosaurs to birds was not
dinosaur -> axcopopulous -> bird.

In fact it seems to be more like
dinosaur ->dinosaur
bird -> bird
axcoipolopus->axciopolus

Axcopoluoys is simply a species of its own. But it fits to place it between dinosaur and bird, simply because it looks like half bird, half dino. It is kinda like that Australian abomination with that I forgot the name of right now which looks like a weird collision between a duck and a beaver. I mean, no one claims that that animial is the transitional form between beavers and ducks, but  100 000 000 years from now, when the scientists look at the fossil record they'll go "yes, the link between birds and mammals, finally".

[mrfish]

Originally posted by AKIron
There are many interpretations of the bible. Many disagree as to what should be taken literally or metaphorically.

then how on earth can you use it as your authority for creation?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
In simple terms (even a lawyer could understand) the 2nd law applies to a closed system. This implies no external energy is added... like sunlight or heat or volcanic dust or... use your imagination.  

The Earth is NOT a closed system as much as you or the Creationist site you quoted from would like it to be.

Wrong MT.

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory of evolution insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing.  In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale.  This trend is a scientifically observed phenomenon.

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”).  Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

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.”
 -Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980.


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.

Ponder over the consequences of those two points for a while MT.

[midnight Target]

Busy cutting and pasting today Stevie?

That is just silly! "The Universe is a closed system, therefore the 2nd law is inviolate. " Means nothing.

What is taken from one area must be paid for in another.. true... But as entropy increases on the Sun it can decrease on Earth. Get it? Still have overall degredation of the closed system (The Universe) while systems in some places actually become more complex.


1) a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2) a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

When I place Oxygen and Hydrogen together in a container... what happens? Are 1 and 2 necessary?

[mrfish]

hortlund - by creating us didn't god introduce a higher level of order into the universe? wouldn't that be uh.......

you're oversimplifying the 2nd law anyway, a system can go from a more probable state to a less probable state provided that delta s, the change in entropy of that specific system is negative.

how can that happen? easy, if the negative entropy of that system is less than the positive entropy of it's surroundings (and a condition that it interacts with those surroundings must exist of course) then the overall entropy of system + surroundings is positive, thus conserved.

irreversibility has more to do with probability of spontaneous reversal anyway but let's spare everyone whaddya say;)

now will you please answer my question?

since you are a creationist- and the bible is presumably your authority - do you believe genesis, yes or no? if no then let's hear your grand theory instead of just hearing your attacks against evolution....

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Busy cutting and pasting today Stevie?

[/b]
Well, you dont really expect me to be an expert in biology, physics, paleontology and law, now do you?

That is just silly! "The Universe is a closed system, therefore the 2nd law is inviolate. " Means nothing.

What is taken from one area must be paid for in another.. true... But as entropy increases on the Sun it can decrease on Earth. Get it? Still have overall degredation of the closed system (The Universe) while systems in some places actually become more complex.

[/b]
Maybe you forgot to read the part of my post where it was made clear that the second law applies in an open system just as in a closed one?

1) a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2) a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

When I place Oxygen and Hydrogen together in a container... what happens? Are 1 and 2 necessary?

Dont you get it? If you put it there, something might happen. But what happens if you let hydrogen and oxygen just float around by themselves. What are the odds of them deciding to match up in your box?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by mrfish
then how on earth can you use it as your authority for creation?

Just because many disagree on the interpretation doesn't mean that they are all wrong and that there is no valid interpretation.

I believe mine to be more correct than others.

Are you suggesting that if there were a being that created all time and space from nothing setting evolution in motion that that being didn't create it?

I suggest that he (pardon the pronoun) did create and plan it down to the last strand of dna.