Science Richard Dawkins calls for evolution to be taught to children from age five.

[UndeadDragon]

Is it really?

We share about 95% of our DNA with primates.

 

[Bartuc08]

Macro evolution is micro evolution on a larger scale over a longer period of time. The terms were coined to reach some middle ground between creationist and evolutionist.

 

[Siretu]

There's nothing in the world that even slightly shows signs of evolution. We develop and grow within specific parameters, if we deviate from those parameters (our genetic code) the results aren't improvement but degradation and deformation. They ultimately have no proof whatsoever for evolution.

Regardless of whether you are an agnostic, atheist, or belong to any other religion, there is no reason whatsoever to support or believe in evolution.
And for the record, the word religion can be as broad as a "common belief" thus applies to agnosticism and atheism. It doesn't necessarily imply belief in a deity.

I also thoroughly believe that it shouldn't be taught in schools whatsoever (or religion for that matter unless elective). I believe you should teach your own children what you believe, not have schools indoctrinate children and specifically young children (whom believe almost anything) incapable of debating and researching this belief.

Micro-evolution is real and there is plenty of proof to support it but there is none whatsoever for macro-evolution which is what Darwin proposed. Evolutionists often lump the two together and use the former as evidence of the whole when in fact there is absolutely no proof of even one of any type of creature being reproduced with even one bit of new genetic information. Even "if" you believe evolution happens over millions or billions of years, there would still be very small amounts of new genetic information recordable today.

Here's a short quote from the second link:



And here's a short quote from the first link:



Reference: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Very short:http://toptenproofs.com/article_evolution.php

Don't reply with baseless information. If you actually want to dispute me read the entirety of the first article that I linked (and preferably the second also). And make sure you've thoroughly read any articles you're going to reply with in defense of evolution, because I will and I'll do my best to pick them apart. Also don't reply claiming proof of (maco) evolution citing evidence of micro-evolution.

Oooooh, I just can't ignore a good debate when I see one.

For the record, I read both of your links. Even the long one(I even had to start taking notes to remember all things in it that I disagree with)

I also want to state that I've never seen this view of creationism before(micro-evolution vs macro-evolution). It's actually that first one that I can understand why people believe in it.

My biggest problem with this theory is the way that you differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

At no time did a single piece of new, ADDITIONAL genetic information develop in any of these cases. It was merely a shuffling of EXISTING genetic information.

DNA consists of 4 different nucleobases. Adenine(A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) and from the different orders of these nucleobases, life is formed as we know it.

The genetic information in the quote above is basically DNA. There are two problems with the quote however. First of all, it was not just shuffling. Mutations are not just inversions of parts of a chromosome. There can also be insertions, deletions and duplications. Insertions and duplications create additional genetic information contrary to what the article states.

The other problem I see is that even if there was no additional genetic information being added(although, as I see it, there was. See above), just shuffling the genetic information does not mean that a new specie can't be created. When it comes down to it, the difference between different species DNA is just that the DNA strains are different(shuffled around)

Okay, that is my original thought. Now on to what I think about the long article and the proof it states against evolution.

What kind of proof do you want us to give you for evolution in terms of physical evidence that it has already existed? You want us to show you intermediates between two steps in evolution.

The problem is that if I take a random specie and you tell me to show you proof of another specie that it evolved from. If I provide one, you can just say that they're not related even if they look similar and have almost the same DNA.

A classic example would be the evolution of humans from apes. I don't really get your view on this since it seems to vary between different creationists.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.

Correct me if I did not understand this correctly, but isn't this saying that paleoanthropologists have gathered remains that shows a line of human descendants going back to an ancestor that we share with chimpanzees? Isn't that exactly the kind of proof you wanted?

Are you complaining because they only have remains from fewer than 2000 ancestors? Is it so hard to believe that there aren't an abundance of remains lying around in perfect condition?

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

I just wanted to point out that I think this is proof for both of neither, not just creation.

The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Oh, I think I understand your ape problem now. You think: "Sure apes and humans are alike in some ways, but not in all. They don't have the same intelligence and the anatomies are not quite right. Since 90% of the DNA is the same, surely, they should look more alike than they do if evolution was true."

I still disagree. The anatomies are very similar. 10% is still quite a big difference.

The article seems to think that the difference between a chimpanzee and a human is small. While this is true in relation to other species, 10% of the DNA is still a lot. Enough to explain the observable differences between the two.

The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

First of all, I am quite surprised to see thermodynamics in a debate about evolution, but I wont argue more about that.

The article states that the second law of thermodynamics is one of the bestproved laws of nature. It then continues to say "No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found".

Coming from a math background, I have a problem with accepting things just because no one has disproved it yet. Still, I will assume that it does work for Evolution however weird that sounds.

I still have a problem with it. Remember the toads in your example about micro-evolution? Did they not fight the second law of thermodynamics by not going towards disorganization and decreased complexity?

My problem with linking evolution with thermodynamics is that it(from what I gathered) assumes that species can't evolve because everything always gets worse in a system(I can't be sure that this is exactly what the article is suggesting since it doesn't go into specifics and just says that the biological system on earth should go "downhill")

"Downhill" is very vague. Micro-evolution seems pretty "uphill" to me. Maybe the writer is trying to say that it's a big "downhill" slope and that micro-evolution is just a small bump in the road, so to speak. This would mean that our biological system can go uphill for a while as long as it comes down in the end.

Well, if micro-evolution is allowed according to the second law of thermodynamics. Why not macro-evolution? The earth will come down in the end. Our sun wont last forever.

"Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God."
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The funny thing about this is that we were asked that question in school(We're currently having a religions course and the question was the definition of religion. To make thing even more funny, we have it directly after biology class where we are currently discussing evolution. )

Just because you believe in something does NOT make it a religion. Some people believe in ghosts. Is that a religion? I believe that Donald Duck doesn't exist? Is that a religion? Obviously no. Defining "Religion" is not as easy as "Something you believe in"

The rest of the article from this point is just trying to prove that darwinism is a religion. It has left the point about trying to prove that evolution is false.

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

Apparently, "all the data point to an intelligent designer". I would be interested to see the data that proves God's existence. If all the data truly pointed to an intelligent designer. I believe(again, does not mean that I'm believing in a religion ) that more people would be religious.

On the contrary, I personally still think all the data points to evolution's existence.

I am sorry that I didn't link any articles for you to pick apart, but my post is rather long(actually longer than the second link you posted) so I hope you'll have a fun time, picking it apart instead. I look forward to your answers.

 

[Syndrome]

"All data points to an intelligent designer."
LOL.

[video=youtube;oEl9kVl6KPc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc[/video]

As a side note, Neil Degrass Tyson is extremely fun to watch and also really entertaining.

 

[Jesus4Lyf]

We share about 95% of our DNA with primates.

We share something like 70% of our DNA with carrots.. .. so?

 

[SerraAvenger]

Have you noticed how easily you can substitute "evolution" with "pornography" without impeding the tenor of the article?

Children in the UK should be taught the science of pornography from the age of five, says Prof Dickard Rawchins.

The Oxford pornographist argues that pornography is so important to our understanding of the world that it should form part of the primary school curriculum. He is dismissive of the notion that pornography is a difficult concept for young children to grasp.

"Pornography is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of my sexuality, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age," he writes in the Times.

"If we are going to be prescriptive about teaching history, comparative religion, maths and English – and I wouldn't wish to sweep those things away – I don't see why we shouldn't be prescriptive about teaching the explanation for my sexuality."

On a more debate oriented note,
There's lots of things a child has to learn (or should be tought). I don't count Knowledge as one of them.
Things a child has to learn are phantasy, emotional competence, social competence, self assurance, curiosity, deductive reasoning etc etc.
Knowledge only makes people stupid and arrogant. Why? Because it makes them FEEL stupid. Because it gives them the idea that knowledge is what separates the good people from the bad. Hence your knowledge starts to define who you are and what your status is (go and learn so you can have a high income - ever heard that one?). The result is either an arrogant dogmatism or a person with no perspective at all. As soon as your knowledge is who you are, any criticism of your knowledge is criticism of you. And as soon as you feel your knowledge is falling behind, you feel like you're falling behind. And if you're falling behind, why even bother?
Even the idea of teaching knowledge is based upon many false premises. Truth is universal - bullshit! The teachers know what they're talking about - bullshit! Knowledge is static - bullshit! Knowledge is value (also known as: Non scholae, sed vitae discimus, and yes, I googled that up) - bullshit!
Truth exists only within a system. People err. Theories are improved or substituted. Knowledge can help create value, but only specific knowledge, not knowledge per se.
The arising inconsistency makes any effort to teach knowledge seem ridiculous.
Teaching knowledge is not even efficient. There is a saying in germany: "You never know as much as in the week before your A-Levels". Even some teachers repeat this phrase, only underlining the ridiculousness of the system. Efficient acquisition of knowledge requires two things above all: The accessibility of knowledge and the interest of the learner. Neither are part of the process associated with teaching, at least not in german schools.
Knowledge is not important. Nobody needs know-it-alls nor highly-focused specialists (the type which can't solve any problem, but that very well). What we need are effective people who can work together efficiently and are able to acquire the knowledge they need to solve the task at hand. You can't teach that by knowledge.
You can't.

 

[SerraAvenger]

[Sorry in advance for double posting, but since this is a completely different train of thoughts I hope you don't mind]

Just because you believe in something does NOT make it a religion. Some people believe in ghosts. Is that a religion? I believe that Donald Duck doesn't exist? Is that a religion? Obviously no. Defining "Religion" is not as easy as "Something you believe in"

I agree. I think religion has a lot to do with a community and common rituals. It isn't hard to argue that this doesn't really apply to evolutionists/atheists.
However one could say that evolutionism is a theory or a belief. Just like the "Donald Duck doesn't exist" belief. One might seem more probable or more plausible (according to occam's razor, the difference of those two is small). That doesn't make it true, though. Depending on how you define true. I don't think that much truth exists outside of assumptions. If there is any truth, it's probably god or something
On the other hand, religion often is exactly NOT about probability or plausability. At which point I think a religion is exceeding its authority, but that is my very personal view.

 

[Icyculyr]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110217-hudson-river-pcb-fish-evolution-water/

BANG. Thank you come again Iculyr.

That's micro-evolution:

Bottom-feeding fish in the Hudson River have developed a gene that renders them immune to the toxic effects of PCBs, researchers say.

A genetic variant allows the fish to live in waters notoriously polluted by the now-banned industrial chemicals, and distinguishes the fish—Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod)—as one of the world’s fastest evolving populations.

The changes are within its genetic code, there is no new genetic information developing:

It turns out the fish sport a handy modification to a gene encoding a protein known to regulate the toxic effects of PCBs and related chemicals, called the aryl hydrocarbon receptor2, or AHR2.

The fish are missing six base pairs of DNA of the AHR2 gene, and the two amino acids each triplet would code for. PCBs bind poorly to the mutated receptors, apparently blunting the chemicals' effects.

Obviously it hasn't been observed or anything to show some proof of that kind. It takes so long, much longer than the amount of time humans as a species have existed. But if micro evolution exists as you say, why can't lots of micro evolution build up to macro evolution? What exactly is there to stop it?

For example, the law of increasing entropy makes it impossible. Additionally, micro-evolution is improvements within their a creatures genetic code whereas macro-evolution is new genetic information which isn't documented in any creature at all. If evolution was true, even over ten billion years, you'd see at least one tiny piece of new genetic information in creatures today.

Of course there isn't. We'll just completely ignore the fossil record, then.

Evolve or die.

They use the word "inferential (evidence)" a lot in that article. Here's a quite from the first article:

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

Macro evolution is micro evolution on a larger scale over a longer period of time. The terms were coined to reach some middle ground between creationist and evolutionist.

Actually it isn't, as micro-evolution stays within the genetic code of the creature. It's not acquiring new genetic information. Plus, the laws of increasing entropy (a.k.a the second law of thermodynamics) make evolution impossible.

Oooooh, I just can't ignore a good debate when I see one.

For the record, I read both of your links. Even the long one(I even had to start taking notes to remember all things in it that I disagree with)

Haha me neither, and sounds good! =)

I also want to state that I've never seen this view of creationism before(micro-evolution vs macro-evolution). It's actually that first one that I can understand why people believe in it.

My biggest problem with this theory is the way that you differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

DNA consists of 4 different nucleobases. Adenine(A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) and from the different orders of these nucleobases, life is formed as we know it.

The genetic information in the quote above is basically DNA. There are two problems with the quote however. First of all, it was not just shuffling. Mutations are not just inversions of parts of a chromosome. There can also be insertions, deletions and duplications. Insertions and duplications create additional genetic information contrary to what the article states.

The quote isn't saying that there isn't additional genetic information, just that there isn't new additional genetic information. If you understand that I mean.

The other problem I see is that even if there was no additional genetic information being added(although, as I see it, there was. See above), just shuffling the genetic information does not mean that a new specie can't be created. When it comes down to it, the difference between different species DNA is just that the DNA strains are different(shuffled around)

It does if it is only operating within its genetic code. To say it in another way, it has some variation designed into its genetic code that allows it to change slightly to adapt. But, that doesn't mean it can produce new genetic information outside of that code, if that makes sense.

Okay, that is my original thought. Now on to what I think about the long article and the proof it states against evolution.

What kind of proof do you want us to give you for evolution in terms of physical evidence that it has already existed? You want us to show you intermediates between two steps in evolution.

The problem is that if I take a random specie and you tell me to show you proof of another specie that it evolved from. If I provide one, you can just say that they're not related even if they look similar and have almost the same DNA.

A classic example would be the evolution of humans from apes. I don't really get your view on this since it seems to vary between different creationists.


Correct me if I did not understand this correctly, but isn't this saying that paleoanthropologists have gathered remains that shows a line of human descendants going back to an ancestor that we share with chimpanzees? Isn't that exactly the kind of proof you wanted?

Are you complaining because they only have remains from fewer than 2000 ancestors? Is it so hard to believe that there aren't an abundance of remains lying around in perfect condition?

I just wanted to point out that I think this is proof for both of neither, not just creation.

Actually, I believe that quote is talking about what paleoanthropologists try to prove (poorly), not what is proven.

Here's some quotes:

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Oh, I think I understand your ape problem now. You think: "Sure apes and humans are alike in some ways, but not in all. They don't have the same intelligence and the anatomies are not quite right. Since 90% of the DNA is the same, surely, they should look more alike than they do if evolution was true."

I still disagree. The anatomies are very similar. 10% is still quite a big difference.

The article seems to think that the difference between a chimpanzee and a human is small. While this is true in relation to other species, 10% of the DNA is still a lot. Enough to explain the observable differences between the two.

First of all, I am quite surprised to see thermodynamics in a debate about evolution, but I wont argue more about that.

The article states that the second law of thermodynamics is one of the bestproved laws of nature. It then continues to say "No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found".

Coming from a math background, I have a problem with accepting things just because no one has disproved it yet. Still, I will assume that it does work for Evolution however weird that sounds.

Well, it applies to everything as said in the article: physics, chemistry, biology, geography, and there isn't anything yet known that isn't subject to it. Life deforms and decreases in complexity, not the opposite. And no, that isn't my opinion on ape's either, I explained above what I thought that quote regarding that stuff was saying.

I still have a problem with it. Remember the toads in your example about micro-evolution? Did they not fight the second law of thermodynamics by not going towards disorganization and decreased complexity?

My problem with linking evolution with thermodynamics is that it(from what I gathered) assumes that species can't evolve because everything always gets worse in a system(I can't be sure that this is exactly what the article is suggesting since it doesn't go into specifics and just says that the biological system on earth should go "downhill")

"Downhill" is very vague. Micro-evolution seems pretty "uphill" to me. Maybe the writer is trying to say that it's a big "downhill" slope and that micro-evolution is just a small bump in the road, so to speak. This would mean that our biological system can go uphill for a while as long as it comes down in the end.

Well, if micro-evolution is allowed according to the second law of thermodynamics. Why not macro-evolution? The earth will come down in the end. Our sun wont last forever.

That was only 70 years though and subtle changes and adaptations are very different from transitioning from one species to another, they don't have any fossils that were in the process of transitioning.

The funny thing about this is that we were asked that question in school(We're currently having a religions course and the question was the definition of religion. To make thing even more funny, we have it directly after biology class where we are currently discussing evolution. )

Just because you believe in something does NOT make it a religion. Some people believe in ghosts. Is that a religion? I believe that Donald Duck doesn't exist? Is that a religion? Obviously no. Defining "Religion" is not as easy as "Something you believe in"

The rest of the article from this point is just trying to prove that darwinism is a religion. It has left the point about trying to prove that evolution is false.



Apparently, "all the data point to an intelligent designer". I would be interested to see the data that proves God's existence. If all the data truly pointed to an intelligent designer. I believe(again, does not mean that I'm believing in a religion ) that more people would be religious.

On the contrary, I personally still think all the data points to evolution's existence.

I am sorry that I didn't link any articles for you to pick apart, but my post is rather long(actually longer than the second link you posted) so I hope you'll have a fun time, picking it apart instead. I look forward to your answers.

That's different than having a common belief shared amongst many though. Atheism for example is a common belief shared by a large population on the earth, there is no way to prove that there isn't a creator thus it is a religion. If you're looking at things like ghosts, or donald duck, they are too small to be considered religions. For example, the group of star wars fanatics that believe they are jedi and have the force, that is a religion.

Nah, it's cool. I think I'd be a bit overloaded if you did post many articles... LOL ahaha. It's time for me to go play League of Legends, too much thinking... lol

 

[D.V.D]

Over 10 billion years you would see a new piece of genetic code. Well earth hasn't been around for 10 billion years, infact it was far far less and in that time we had types of dinosaurs and before that we had lots of different types of fish that sound like fantasy to people now. We also have the animals we have now. I don't quite understand what you mean by new genetic info. We have lots of animals with 4 legs but we have lots of insects with 10-100 legs. We have animals without legs, animals with wings and animals with fins. So lots of variety Wouldn't all of that be different genetic code?

Edit: and you said small suddle changes can't actually alter the whole genetic code even after many changes but I say thats not true. Lots of changes to different parts of the genetic code would later end up in every piece of the genetic code being changed. It doesn't have to be rapid but it can happen.

 

[tooltiperror]

Well, just about all animals are the same ingredients with a different recipe, meaning the genes are so similar it's easy to see we're all somehow related.

 

[D.V.D]

Well its chance that a cell managed to evolve to a multi celled organism so since the chances are so slim, only this cell managed and grew to be much more advance then everyone else (multi celled).

 

[Icyculyr]

Over 10 billion years you would see a new piece of genetic code. Well earth hasn't been around for 10 billion years, infact it was far far less and in that time we had types of dinosaurs and before that we had lots of different types of fish that sound like fantasy to people now. We also have the animals we have now. I don't quite understand what you mean by new genetic info. We have lots of animals with 4 legs but we have lots of insects with 10-100 legs. We have animals without legs, animals with wings and animals with fins. So lots of variety Wouldn't all of that be different genetic code?

The point is though that if evolution was real you would see at least some new genetic information recorded in creatures today -- creatures would be changing very slightly, but they're not. They've also not found any fossils that were in the process of transitioning from one creature to another, not one.

Edit: and you said small suddle changes can't actually alter the whole genetic code even after many changes but I say thats not true. Lots of changes to different parts of the genetic code would later end up in every piece of the genetic code being changed. It doesn't have to be rapid but it can happen.

I said that no new genetic information developed. Like with the cane toad example, they didn't evolve, they didn't develop any new genetic information allowing them to grow longer legs, their genetic code already allows for variations like that. The majority had shorter legs but died off, and the minority that had longer legs survived and passed that dominate gene onto their tadpoles which produced a generation of cane toads with longer legs.

The same goes for another example provided by that second link. If you had a pack of dogs in a very cold climate sooner or later would one be born with a dominate gene for thicker fur, it didn't evolve this ability -- it already had it. This dog with thicker fur would survive longer than the others and pass this gene on to the majority of its pups producing a generation of dogs with thicker fur.

This is micro-evolution, it isn't developing new genetic code for example like would be the case with a dog growing wings. This doesn't eventually lead to macro-evolution, which is radically different because it involves the development (none of which has ever been documented) of new genetic information.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

And then you've got the law of entropy; a proven science, a universal law of nature which stipulates that all systems in the real world go toward disorganization and decreased complexity which is the exact opposite of what is proposed by evolution.

 

[camelCase]

But isn't entropy only for thermodynamics or energy within a system?
I don't see how evolution and entropy relate to each other, they're entirely different studies.

Evolution isn't about increased or decreased complexity, if it helps a species survive, it's good.
Like bacteria, simple creatures but they survive well enough.
And humans, complex creatures and we're surviving.

This mix of simple and complex organisms brings about variety which has nothing to do with entropy.
And I have to ask, what do you mean by 'disorganization' of an evolutionary system?

Also, I feel that we haven't found any 'missing-links' in evolutions because we haven't collected enough variety of fossils.
We have enough types of species that 20+ can go extinct a day and still have lots more to spare.

Imagine the variety way back then and how many were decomposed, eaten, broken into little bits, etc. before they ever had the chance to fossilize.
Even then, we have collected quite a number of it and thus, the list of Transitional Fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_Tetrapods
I know wikipedia is a horrible resource but the point I am making is that these transitional fossils are very real.
Just that time has destroyed so many fossils, our opportunities into a glimpse of the past.

And going from fins to legs is pretty cool, too.

 

[duderock101]

The constant battle between Science and Religion. Why can't you guys just leave all the theories - it'll all be proven when you die. Lifes too short to question something which will all be revealed once you pass on.

 

[Icyculyr]

But isn't entropy only for thermodynamics or energy within a system?
I don't see how evolution and entropy relate to each other, they're entirely different studies.

No, the second law of thermodynamics applies to every system as said below:

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

Evolution isn't about increased or decreased complexity, if it helps a species survive, it's good.
Like bacteria, simple creatures but they survive well enough.
And humans, complex creatures and we're surviving.

The idea of macro-evolution is that complexity increases, basic life forms become more advanced.

This mix of simple and complex organisms brings about variety which has nothing to do with entropy.
And I have to ask, what do you mean by 'disorganization' of an evolutionary system?

The point is that evolution is about organization, increasing complexity whilst the law of entropy is about disorganization and decreasing complexity. The latter is proven, which disproves the former. And here's a quote from the article about disorganization:

Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order.

Also, I feel that we haven't found any 'missing-links' in evolutions because we haven't collected enough variety of fossils.
We have enough types of species that 20+ can go extinct a day and still have lots more to spare.

Imagine the variety way back then and how many were decomposed, eaten, broken into little bits, etc. before they ever had the chance to fossilize.
Even then, we have collected quite a number of it and thus, the list of Transitional Fossils.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_Tetrapods
I know wikipedia is a horrible resource but the point I am making is that these transitional fossils are very real.
Just that time has destroyed so many fossils, our opportunities into a glimpse of the past.

And going from fins to legs is pretty cool, too.

It's great and all that they've found these fossils, but they can't actually prove they evolved from anything. What's to say it isn't just another type of creature that died out long ago? Anyway:

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

And I think this part is what that list entails:

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of organisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

 

[Siretu]

No, the second law of thermodynamics applies to every system as said below:


The idea of macro-evolution is that complexity increases, basic life forms become more advanced.

The point is that evolution is about organization, increasing complexity whilst the law of entropy is about disorganization and decreasing complexity. The latter is proven, which disproves the former. And here's a quote from the article about disorganization:


It's great and all that they've found these fossils, but they can't actually prove they evolved from anything. What's to say it isn't just another type of creature that died out long ago? Anyway:


And I think this part is what that list entails:

So according to the second law of thermodynamics(which applies to all systems), life forms can not become more advanced? Are you trying to tell me humans have been driving cars for thousands of years? Don't tell me the law does not apply on this because if you're doing a long stretch by using it in evolution, this is completely relevant.

"What's to say it isn't just another type of creature that died out long ago?". Well, if we found a fossil with transitional form, what's to say you wont disregard it as another type of creature that died out long ago? Why are you asking for this kind of proof, when you can just disregard it anyway?

The quote isn't saying that there isn't additional genetic information, just that there isn't new additional genetic information. If you understand that I mean.

I think you're misunderstanding how this works. Every specie is built up by the same building blocks(DNA). If we shuffle it around, we can get new species. We don't NEED new additional genetic information to get a new specie.

I think I am misunderstanding your definition of genetic information. Since it's a big thing in your argument against evolution, maybe should explain it in details? Are you also talking about DNA?

"That was only 70 years though and subtle changes and adaptations are very different from transitioning from one species to another, they don't have any fossils that were in the process of transitioning."

So you are saying that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to everything as you previously stated? Since it apparently doesn't work for micro-evolution, why should it work for macro-evolution? You can't just say that it works for all systems EXCEPT micro-evolution and say that's a proof that the macro-evolution doesn't work.

The entire point about religion is also quite pointless, but to give another example: I believe the earth is round. That is a common belief shared by a large population on the earth. Therefore, believing in a round earth is a religion.

 

[Icyculyr]

So according to the second law of thermodynamics(which applies to all systems), life forms can not become more advanced? Are you trying to tell me humans have been driving cars for thousands of years? Don't tell me the law does not apply on this because if you're doing a long stretch by using it in evolution, this is completely relevant.

Yes, that is correct. Basic life forms can't evolve into more complex life forms. And I don't see your point? How does driving cars have anything to do with becoming more advanced (complex)? Unless you're talking about how we've developed technology over the years but that has nothing to do with evolution.

"What's to say it isn't just another type of creature that died out long ago?". Well, if we found a fossil with transitional form, what's to say you wont disregard it as another type of creature that died out long ago? Why are you asking for this kind of proof, when you can just disregard it anyway?

Well, the point is you won't find it and it I wasn't asking for this kind of proof. My question was valid though, as I bolded in some things I quoted, it is just multiple species with features from other groups. There's no proof that those creatures evolved from something else.

I think you're misunderstanding how this works. Every specie is built up by the same building blocks(DNA). If we shuffle it around, we can get new species. We don't NEED new additional genetic information to get a new specie.

I think I am misunderstanding your definition of genetic information. Since it's a big thing in your argument against evolution, maybe should explain it in details? Are you also talking about DNA?

To begin with you can't just shuffle DNA around and make a new species, not even with fruit flies yet alone more complex creatures:

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

For a single celled organism to evolve into a human it would require not shuffling of DNA but of new genetic information. Genes, cells, proteins, and whatnot.

So you are saying that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to everything as you previously stated? Since it apparently doesn't work for micro-evolution, why should it work for macro-evolution? You can't just say that it works for all systems EXCEPT micro-evolution and say that's a proof that macro-evolution works.

Mmm, no? I didn't say that. The law of entropy does apply to everything as I previously stated. Aside from the fact that one million years of degradation isn't the same as seventy years of degradation, the point is if the law of entropy stipulates that systems disorganize (mutate) and decrease in complexity then it makes no sense that a basic life form would be able to organize and increase in complexity (macro-evolution). It's essentially going against the natural systems we know to be true. It isn't the same with micro-evolution because micro-evolution has nothing to do with increasing in complexity which you can see quite clearly by reading what I wrote about it again.

The entire point about religion is also quite pointless, but to give another example: I believe the earth is round. That is a common belief shared by a large population on the earth. Therefore, believing in a round earth is a religion.

You know in what context I was referring though, in that instance religion isn't the right word but for atheism and agnosticism it is. I could put more effort into proving this but it doesn't really matter (perhaps I'm not explaining clearly enough what I mean either).

 

[FireCat]

We share about 95% of our DNA with primates.

We share something like 70% of our DNA with carrots.. .. so?

We also share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but that doesn't make us half plantain. LOL We share over the 95% of DNA with pigs too, and flies even mice 99% .we are mice?
We are all related. We all share the same four DNA bases. "We all are animals" But we are not descended from monkeys, we Just share a common ancestor.

Evolutionary is only a theory and should not be the primary focus of a public school biology course. Well, Science should be taught on the basis of true scientific evidence only.
And Religion should be taught in the home and family.

 

[UndeadDragon]

Evolutionary is only a theory and should not be the primary focus of a public school biology course. Well, Science should be taught on the basis of true scientific evidence only.
And Religion should be taught in the home and family.

Many things cannot be proved without a doubt.

Some would argue that gravity (or at least aspects of it) is a theory.

 

[phyrex1an]

Oh god I just read the last few posts in this thread. Don't tell me that some idiot here is actually using the second law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution?
That's hilarious on every level

For said idiots: The second law is about closed systems. If you believe that the earth is a closed system, then please meet sun. She will be delighted to shine upon thou the waste amount of energy required for an entropy decrease.