How many here believe in evolution?

[whgates3]

Originally posted by Jekyll
SHIP years Puke ... not years as measured back here on earth.  Time dilation means that in 56 SHIP years you could indeed circumnavigate the observable universe.

no you cant

[eskimo2]

3 of the 4 biggest threads ever in the O Club, all about basically the same thing!

eskimo

[RDSaustinTX]

Materialistic theory? Do you know what you mean?

 
Yes. Do you?
 

How do you separate science from materialism?

 
I don't. Scientific inquiry is inherently materialistic. Studies observable nature, nothing else counts. The absence of supernatural influence is an initial assumption, not a conclusion.
 

Evolution is more than sufficient to explain the diversity we see today, especially when coupled with 4.5 billion years.

 
Actually there is less diversity today than ever before, but the higher contemporary species are much more complex.
 
And since you got it figured out, explain how natural selection yielded oh, hmmm, metamorphosis.
 
TIA

[RDSaustinTX]

Punctuated equilibrium is a minor clarification on how evolution worked - not contradicting to the main principles in the least. Whatever contradiction there seems to be, it's the result of issue being overblown way out of proportion by fame-hungry scientist (Miko).

 
Actually the second half of the Origin of Species, esp. Ch 10 very explicitly acknowledges the problem. Hell, the last half of that book flatly criticized paleontology/geology to create a rift long established before Gould was born.
 

Nobody ever claimed that evolution has any kind of a set constant pace. (Miko)

 
You're kidding right?
 
"As Natural Selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps." - Darwin
 
Admit it, you don't know what punctuated equilibrium is, or where it came from...  
 

[Tyro48]

Actually I think our DNA is even more closely related to the common earth worm, its all very fascinating but none of it provides the concrete evidence science needs to make a call, just bring up more possibilities.

[Naso]

The real problem is that the today newage influenced vision (yes I say that), with some religious based revisionism that it's spreading ignorance around, using the mass media, it's forcing in the naive minds (even judge's minds ), the concept that the Science is religion-like.

This is plain WRONG.

Science have nothing to do with religion, and no discussion can be made comparing the two.

If you have a Scientific Creationist theory, you need to prove it using scientific method, and accept the eventuality that you theory be changed/denied by scientific proves.

If you have a Creationist Religion, you simply dont need to prove anithing, the religion it's matter of faith, and dont need to be proved.

On the other side of the coin, the scientific theory of evolution have to be proved using scientific method (as it is for us, the ones that work on it, well, or were used to work ), and must be accepted that it can be changed/denied by facts.

So, Steve's (and others) game, to be devil advocate against a Scientific theory (by definition subject to changes and incomplete), using religious arguments (by definition subject to a faith, hence immutable), it's a contradiction since the start, and it's only a rethoric exercise (in wich the law guys are specialists ).

To have a constructive discussion, we need to choose only one of the 2 playground.

Science, or Religion.

I guess, since religion is'nt subject to changes, it's better to stay in Science's playground.

In conclusion the questions are (for now) reduced to:

1) Someone here can bring some prove, or facts that can disband/deny the Evolution theory?

2) Someone here can bring some new theory that adapt better to the observed phenomenon?

Answers?

[takeda]

Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Hardly, and not because both theories are incompatible as has been suggested, It is just because "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" aplies to that, a closed system, and life on Earth is hardly a closed system, we have a big hydrogen burning star not so far, wich acts a as huge "entropy generator" compensating all the local small entropy decreases.
That way plants growing, embryos developing or snow flakes forming are possible without violating the 2nd Law.
But in fact the misconception is even bigger as the individual changes in an evolutive process are not directly thermodynamic by themselves, so Thermodynamics has nothing to say about them.

This law is easily misunderstood, so it makes great pseudo-scientific "duct tape".

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by takeda
Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Hardly, and not because both theories are incompatible as has been suggested, It is just because "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" aplies to that, a closed system, and life on Earth is hardly a closed system, we have a big hydrogen burning star not so far, wich acts a as huge "entropy generator" compensating all the local small entropy decreases.
That way plants growing, embryos developing or snow flakes forming are possible without violating the 2nd Law.
But in fact the misconception is even bigger as the individual changes in an evolutive process are not directly thermodynamic by themselves, so Thermodynamics has nothing to say about them.

This law is easily misunderstood, so it makes great pseudo-scientific "duct tape".

But I thought that adding energy is not enough to overcome the 2nd law. You also have to add information. Is that wrong?

[Naso]

Originally posted by Hortlund
But I thought that adding energy is not enough to overcome the 2nd law. You also have to add information. Is that wrong?

This is a nice one!

BTW, you remember me the attitude of a teacher that I had long time ago, a teacher in the class of religion (yes, there is still now, in a state with so-called freedom of religion, a class where they teach christian religion only), that, after me refusing to participate the class because atheic, started to asking "who made you, then", and with my answers about procreation, genetics, cellular division, star forming theoryes, she keep asking "..and who create this?".

The game lasted for almost one hour, since we arrived to the Big Bang.

At this point I answerd: "before the Big Bang we have no clue"

And she pointed:" ah ha!!! So someone must have created the big bang!!".

Then (I was young) I realized that she was'nt listening at all, she was only searching a way to force her interpretation, and "prove" with a "no-prove" that the religion have the answer.

You are trying the same, pointing here and there, to "prove" that there is something the science cannot explain.

Ok, we already stated this, but I will repeat with simple words to make you happy:

There are things that the science cannot explain...... YET!!



You feel better?

[Naso]

BTW, this thread beated the other, 324 posts....

and counting!!

[takeda]

Yes it's wrong.

Thermodynamic entropy is not the same as Information entropy. When Shannon developed information theory, he needed a name for one of his concepts, and tought that Thermodynamic entropy was very similar to his concepts of randomness or statistical disorder.

So, order or disorder are used as a kludge to easily explain the second law, which really just deals with energy. In thermodynamic terms, two DNA molecules.. one perfectly "right", the other "scrambled" are just the same.

Thermodynamics doesn´t deal with "meaning". So your perception or intuition of "ordered or disordered" might not reflect in all cases the actual physical process.

So, 2 cosmic rays hit you and scramble 2 DNA chains, one makes your sons less hairy ( mutation! ), so they get to date nice girls more easily (natural selection!)... the other causes you a cancer, but entropy and the 2nd Law continue their merry way in both cases ignorant of any kind of information added or lost.

[Tyro48]

Both religion and science in their own way try to justify our beingness, simple fact is you just are, neither inferior or superior, you are just you and therfore dont need the justfication os science or religion.

The Bible is merely a compendium of books, many authors and just as many influences and points of view, many translations etc.
You have faith in it or you dont, if you do then your placing the whole enchilada on grace and good works.

If you press science its a never ending trek and never enough info to pin anything down, just enjoy being unique, death will bring all the answers or none. And you aint gettin out of here alive.

[midnight Target]

And since you got it figured out, explain how natural selection yielded oh, hmmm, metamorphosis.

The benefit of metamorphosis is the ability to utilize different niches or environments at different stages of developement. Not much of a stretch to picture complete changes being pressured into intermediate steps through environmental pressures.

[Hortlund]

Still waiting for the explanation of the Giraffe and the first protein MT.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Still waiting for the explanation of the Giraffe and the first protein MT.

.... and who created it?