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

[Bartuc08]

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.

/phyrexowned ?

 

[Wiseman_2]

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.

So you're trying to tell me that Humans simply dropped into existence?

 

[Bronxernijn]

Dawkins is a very fine specimen of a biologist, but he doesn't know -censored- about childrens' education. The fact that he wants it in primary schools too because he finds it fun, interesting and satisfying, shows he is just another of those guys drooling over the course of nature.

Don't get me wrong, science is where it's at bro!

 

[D.V.D]

They observed single celled organisms become multi celled organisms. The slime mold amoeba, was able to become a multi celled organism and I believe it was observed by people before and after.

 

[Icyculyr]

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.

To begin with, there's no need to be rude and I'm guessing you've not read the article:

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. 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. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

So you're trying to tell me that Humans simply dropped into existence?

Mmm, no? I'm telling you it didn't happen by evolution.

They observed single celled organisms become multi celled organisms. The slime mold amoeba, was able to become a multi celled organism and I believe it was observed by people before and after.

Got an article? I'd like to read it if you do.

 

[tooltiperror]

>Mmm, no? I'm telling you it didn't happen by evolution.
If they didn't evolve, and they didn't just plop here, how did we get here?

 

[RedOrb]

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

BANG. Thank you come again Iculyr.

The article suggests that the mutation that stops the bonding of the chemicals saved the fish, and thus natural selection did away with those of the species that didn't have it.

You were replying to Icyculyr's post and if you read the articles he posted, you'd find that they talked about there being no evidence for the so called transitional species. The micro-evolution that refers to natural selection with adaptation and mutation is responsible for the fish surviving, not macro-evolution. And there certianly is no evidence in this article to suggest (at least, yet) that there will be a new species. So what you did was exactly what Icyculyr asked you not to do. >_>

 

[RedOrb]

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

Evolve or die.

I read the article, and I also read the article in the first post responding to his. You've read the first line of his post. I'd suggest that to be unreasonable, and that is all, thanks.

 

[Icyculyr]

>Mmm, no? I'm telling you it didn't happen by evolution.
If they didn't evolve, and they didn't just plop here, how did we get here?

I'm not here to argue anything other than that it's not evolution. Evolution is not science, it is a religion because they can't prove that it is happening today or that it happened in the past. There is no new genetic information in creatures today, that means evolution isn't happening now and it can't just "stop". They can't even reproduce a new species of fruit fly. The only type of evolution that exists is micro-evolution which isn't anything like macro-evolution.

And they don't have any fossils that are actually in an intermediate state. That is, for example, a human that has gills or wings. All they have is fossils which have features from other groups and are more likely just long extinct creatures. They can't explain many things like the Cambrian period, and evolution itself goes against nature.

 

[phyrex1an]

To begin with, there's no need to be rude

There is no need to be stupid either. We all have our personal problems. Your stupidity offend me just as my rudeness offend you. I can make a barging with you: If I teach you to not be stupid, then you teach me how to not be rude and everyone will be happy.

and I'm guessing you've not read the article:

That's even funnier. Let me ask you something, can you move your arm upwards? What process in moving your arm upwards is different from the processes involved in evolution? The article never states (for non stupid people, not stating your evidence is a clear sign of deception).

But in the end, the entire argument is stupid because... you have no idea what entropy is or what the second law actually is. If you want to show that a process clearly disagrees with the second law you have to show that the process is _reversible_. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't give a compelling argument as for why evolution (or any of the processes involved) is reversible. It just states some pseudo scientific nonsense about "deteriorate toward disorganization" which is not what the second law is about. (what's disorganization anyway? you wont be able to clean your room?)
And, even with that, you are in trouble. You have to decide which one is wrong, the second law or evolution. You can't just say that there is a disagreement and then arbitrarily decide that it's evolution that is wrong. In fact, the second law would be on the losing side here. The second law is a definition, or an axiom, it defines (in classical mechanics) what entropy is. If an observation disagrees with an axiom, then we can be sure that it's the axiom which is wrong. It would suck for classical mechanics but on the other had we'd know that time travel would be possible so I guess it's a net win.

Btw, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics read and understand before replying.

And don't even get me started on the information theory side of things... I am a computer scientist after all and entropy is derived from information science...

That is, for example, a human that has gills or wings.

I love you. Sorry for calling you an idiot.

 

[phyrex1an]

One more thing, the sun doesn't transfer "heat" to us. Heat is the transfer of energy due to temperature difference and doesn't happen over a vacuum. The energy from the sun is transfered by electromagnetic radiation (or photons if you're bent that way).

 

[Icyculyr]

There is no need to be stupid either. We all have our personal problems. Your stupidity offend me just as my rudeness offend you. I can make a barging with you: If I teach you to not be stupid, then you teach me how to not be rude and everyone will be happy.

I could retort with a witty insult but I won't. I'm actually capable of discussing or arguing without resorting to insults regardless of how much the other person irritates me, or how stupid I think they are. (And for the record I was neither insinuating that you irritate me or that I think you're stupid, I don't know you and I wouldn't presume such and especially not over one small discussion.)

That's even funnier. Let me ask you something, can you move your arm upwards? What process in moving your arm upwards is different from the processes involved in evolution? The article never states (for non stupid people, not stating your evidence is a clear sign of deception).

But in the end, the entire argument is stupid because... you have no idea what entropy is or what the second law actually is. If you want to show that a process clearly disagrees with the second law you have to show that the process is _reversible_. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't give a compelling argument as for why evolution (or any of the processes involved) is reversible. It just states some pseudo scientific nonsense about "deteriorate toward disorganization" which is not what the second law is about. (what's disorganization anyway? you wont be able to clean your room?)
And, even with that, you are in trouble. You have to decide which one is wrong, the second law or evolution. You can't just say that there is a disagreement and then arbitrarily decide that it's evolution that is wrong. In fact, the second law would be on the losing side here. The second law is a definition, or an axiom, it defines (in classical mechanics) what entropy is. If an observation disagrees with an axiom, then we can be sure that it's the axiom which is wrong. It would suck for classical mechanics but on the other had we'd know that time travel would be possible so I guess it's a net win.

Btw, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics read and understand before replying.

And don't even get me started on the information theory side of things... I am a computer scientist after all and entropy is derived from information science...

Sigh, you've posted nothing whatsoever to disprove anything I said. Rather, you're targeting me which is generally a sign you can't disprove what I said. And there's more evidence against evolution than just the law of entropy, as I've posted throughout this thread (aside from the lack of ANY proof for it whatsoever). And have you actually read the entire article? Because if you did you would know would know what they mean by "deteriorate toward disorganization".

As the article said, the law of entropy applies to physics, chemistry, biology, geology and all systems without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

Correct me if I'm reading this wrong: "If an observation disagrees with an axiom, then we can be sure that it's the axiom which is wrong" which would mean that there is an exception to the law of entropy whilst the above quote says that there isn't. There is no observable proof of evolution, none whatsoever. The law of entropy is a universal law of nature, and it applies to anything and everything without exception. Thus, evolution, which there is no evidence for, proposing that basic life forms evolved into more complex life forms is going against something that is proven, and strongly proven at that.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. 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. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

One more thing, the sun doesn't transfer "heat" to us. Heat is the transfer of energy due to temperature difference and doesn't happen over a vacuum. The energy from the sun is transfered by electromagnetic radiation (or photons if you're bent that way).

Where did anything say anything about "transferring" heat? It's not how the article referred to it, and I've not said that either.

 

[phyrex1an]

I could retort with a witty insult but I won't. I'm actually capable of discussing or arguing without resorting to insults regardless of how much the other person irritates me, or how stupid I think they are. (And for the record I was neither insinuating that you irritate me or that I think you're stupid, I don't know you and I wouldn't presume such and especially not over one small discussion.)

Ok to end this pointless direction, it's your argument which is stupid and it's your argument which I have been attacking. (And I threw in some personal insults for comedic bonus points, I apology for that). I'm not trying to prove the correctness of evolution here, just that applying the second law of thermodynamics in the ways you have done is not even wrong (because it's nonsensical).

Sigh, you've posted nothing whatsoever to disprove anything I said. Rather, you're targeting me which is generally a sign you can't disprove what I said. And there's more evidence against evolution than just the law of entropy, as I've posted throughout this thread (aside from the lack of ANY proof for it whatsoever). And have you actually read the entire article? Because if you did you would know would know what they mean by "deteriorate toward disorganization".

If it isn't clear by now. I'm trying to tell you that you are confusing concepts, misusing terminology and generally doesn't provide a coherent argument to disprove.

As the article said, the law of entropy applies to physics, chemistry, biology, geology and all systems without exception.

And as I said, the law is an _axiom_. It's defined (by humans) to apply everywhere. It would just take a single observation for it to be deemed wrong.

orrect me if I'm reading this wrong: "If an observation disagrees with an axiom, then we can be sure that it's the axiom which is wrong" which would mean that there is an exception to the law of entropy whilst the above quote says that there isn't. There is no observable proof of evolution, none whatsoever. The law of entropy is a universal law of nature, and it applies to anything and everything without exception. Thus, evolution, which there is no evidence for, proposing that basic life forms evolved into more complex life forms is going against something that is proven, and strongly proven at that.

You haven't provided any proof that evolution is reversible, you need to do that before you can say that it goes against the second law. I think I made that pretty clear in my post.

Where did anything say anything about "transferring" heat? It's not how the article referred to it, and I've not said that either.

Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system

There is no "raw solar heat" from the sun to the earth. The energy from the sun comes in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

 

[Bartuc08]

What I've learned from this thread...

- An article, regardless of it's validity, is truth.
- Barging is an acceptable term used when you're trying to come to an agreement with some one. It's also an acceptable way to enter rooms.
- A scientific theory, with enough nonsense behind it, can be misconstrued as a religion.
- The sun doesn't send solar heat to earth, it sends radiation.
- Phyrex1an is rude, very rude.

[edit]

Penn and Teller: Bullshit

Part 1 http://youtu.be/jLRkV1-LMMs

Part 2 http://youtu.be/CkaKBXSxrko

 

[camelCase]

I kinda' like his style of rudeness, though.

 

[Varine]

Can someone summarize the arguments in here so I don't have to read all of them to get caught up?

 

[Icyculyr]

Ok to end this pointless direction, it's your argument which is stupid and it's your argument which I have been attacking. (And I threw in some personal insults for comedic bonus points, I apology for that). I'm not trying to prove the correctness of evolution here, just that applying the second law of thermodynamics in the ways you have done is not even wrong (because it's nonsensical).

If it isn't clear by now. I'm trying to tell you that you are confusing concepts, misusing terminology and generally doesn't provide a coherent argument to disprove.

You haven't provided any proof that evolution is reversible, you need to do that before you can say that it goes against the second law. I think I made that pretty clear in my post.

After enough Googling (that I'm willing to do) I have learned enough to say that you don't seem to be wrong regarding the law of entropy and that that evolution must be proven to be reversible before it can go against the law of entropy. You could have explained that though with a short quote, lol. I also find it strange that the first article I posted conveniently doesn't mention anything about evolution being reversible although it seems to be an important part of this. However, the law of entropy is only one of many arguments that I made.

And as I said, the law is an _axiom_. It's defined (by humans) to apply everywhere. It would just take a single observation for it to be deemed wrong.

Yes, but as of right now there is no known exception to it. What you wrote implied (to me) that life right now and/or other facts is an observation of evolution, meaning the law in this case would be wrong and that there would be known exception.

There is no "raw solar heat" from the sun to the earth. The energy from the sun comes in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

That is semantics is it not? I don't see how that is relevant in his argument. Either one way or another heat is getting to the earth, no?

Either way, I've made plenty of other points throughout this thread which are no less valid such as the lack of intermediary fossils, that evolution today is not observable on the genetic level, and so on. To dig up a few relevant quotes (I'm getting tired lol I need to go play some LoL):

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

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!

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.

Here's an interesting quote from the first link:

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

Here's a quote from the second article:

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality
Evidence for a Young World

 

[Kershbob]

Icyculyr, you are a classic creationist who is uninformed about the basic ideas of biology.

Several other people (on both sides) have stated things that are false as well but you are a hassle.

Please define "kind", "macro-evolution" and "new genetic information" in commonly used scientific terms so you can actually be disproven. Until then there is no point attempting to educate you in regards to anything you have said.

"Kind" defined as a taxonomic term for a clade.
"Macro-evolution" defined in terms of change to a genome.
"new genetic information" defined as anything that makes sense.

Thank you. I will be happy to go through RNA-like molecules, abiogenesis, multicellular emergence, all clades up to higher chordates and of course taxonomy, cladistics and evolution as a whole after we have established everything you've said is wrong.

 

[Icyculyr]

Icyculyr, you are a classic creationist who is uninformed about the basic ideas of biology.

Several other people (on both sides) have stated things that are false as well but you are a hassle.

Please define "kind", "macro-evolution" and "new genetic information" in commonly used scientific terms so you can actually be disproven. Until then there is no point attempting to educate you in regards to anything you have said.

"Kind" defined as a taxonomic term for a clade.
"Macro-evolution" defined in terms of change to a genome.
"new genetic information" defined as anything that makes sense.

Thank you. I will be happy to go through RNA-like molecules, abiogenesis, multicellular emergence, all clades up to higher chordates and of course taxonomy, cladistics and evolution as a whole after we have established everything you've said is wrong.

To begin with you don't know what I am or what I believe because I've not told you and I've done so intentionally. I've explained what I mean by macro-evolution and new genetic information multiple times, whether you've bothered to read through my posts where I've done that I don't know (although I figure not) but there's nothing difficult to understand about what I've said and what I mean. Also, I guess you've not read any of the material I've linked which would also give you plenty of insight into what I'm saying.

 

[Varine]

Icyculyr, you are a classic creationist who is uninformed about the basic ideas of biology.

We're somewhat lucky he didn't say Apple founded the universe.