Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

Which is nowhere near an accurate statement. If a tornado (increased energy) blasts through a town (open system), entropy increases.

Nonsense, a tornado is itself a structured localised concentration of energy, a lack of entropy, the resulting damage and destruction caused is rather beside the point.

It takes informed action to decrease entropy, and that only locally. Sometimes even that is not good enough.

Perhaps it takes informed action to create a tornado then? lain:

 

[Stripe]

Tell me what you think is in error,.

Words have meaning. You used one to represent my idea that I did not use. Here's a tip: When you try to represent someone's ideas, use their words as much as possible.

I'll explain it to you with short words when I've finished laughing.

You still haven't corrected your earlier mistakes. A message from my computer to yours does not degrade because of informed processes designed to preserve the integrity of the information sent. And you challenged the fact of entropy to launch that defense; denying physical reality.

Not needed. You're the one making the rather big claim that the thermodynamic sciences are not what Physicists believe them to be, it is up to you to provide a proof of error, despite it being patiently explained to you again and again.

We're not focused on thermodynamics. Evolutionists claim that the sun can power changes that bring increased information to DNA. They will do everything in their power to make sure the answer to that question is buried as deep as possible.

Fortunately, they do have amusement value.

Nonsense, a tornado is itself a structured localised concentration of energy, a lack of entropy, the resulting damage and destruction caused is rather beside the point.

:dizzy:

Does entropy ever increase?

Perhaps it takes informed action to create a tornado then?

Perhaps it does. :idunno:

However, this is clearly another attempt to distance yourself from the question you've been posed: How does the sun power increased complexity in a genome?

 

[gcthomas]

And you challenged the fact of entropy to launch that defense; denying physical reality.

No. I didn't challenge the fact ('principle' would be a better word) of entropy.

Here's a tip: When you try to represent someone's ideas, use their words as much as possible. (or perhaps try to read what is written)

 

[Stripe]

No. I didn't challenge the fact ('principle' would be a better word) of entropy.

Sure, you did. You denied that the principle of entropy applied to the situation of a message sent from one computer to another. Sorry, the principle of entropy applies in all situations. Denying this fact shows that you have a commitment to a theory rather than proper science.

And the question remains unanswered. How does the sun power genome betterment?

 

[gcthomas]

Sure, you did. You denied that the principle of entropy applied to the situation of a message sent from one computer to another. Sorry, the principle of entropy applies in all situations. Denying this fact shows that you have a commitment to a theory rather than proper science.

So denying your application of a principle is to deny the principle itself?

Idiot.

 

[noguru]

Sure, you did. You denied that the principle of entropy applied to the situation of a message sent from one computer to another. Sorry, the principle of entropy applies in all situations. Denying this fact shows that you have a commitment to a theory rather than proper science.

And the question remains unanswered. How does the sun power genome betterment?

You analogy of natural DNA to human language is inaccurate for precisely the reason you choose to use it. Nature is much broader in the use of DNA than humans are with a specific language. You have to consider the vast amount of possibility in nature that is not the same in humanly devised languages.

You are just constructing another straw man argument.

 

[6days]

Well, let's take a look again (6days has been repeatedly reminded that what he posted is a lie, but let's show him again)

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould,*Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

Perhaps Gould and yourself should be infuriated at committed evolutionists. Or... perhaps you should stop Twisting what Patterson said.


"Collin Patterson, paleontologist said "If I knew of any, (evolutionary transitions) fossil or living, I would certainly have included them (in my book) . You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
......
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”*I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
.......
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question."

Patterson is correct... there are no "watertight arguments" of even one transitional fossil. (Again, depends on definitions and your beliefs) *

Evolutionists rely on creative minds ...walking whales.... a lemur that is transitional to humans...aliens....T-rex with feathers etc. Even if such creatures existed.... as *Patterson says "statements about ancestry are not applicable in the fossil record." Some have thought DNA might help the belief system of common ancestry. Howrver, "Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination" (N. A. Takahata, "Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics)

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Well, let's take a look again (6days has been repeatedly reminded that what he posted is a lie, but let's show him again)

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould,*Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

Perhaps Gould and yourself should be infuriated at committed evolutionists.

Let's focus on the fact that you've been reminded numerous times that Gould did not say that there are no transistionals. As you know, Gould says that they are abundant.

And yet, you once again posted something you knew to be false. You got caught, there's nothing for you to do now, but learn from it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, you did. You denied that the principle of entropy applied to the situation of a message sent from one computer to another. Sorry, the principle of entropy applies in all situations.

Well, let's see what you've got. Show us how entropy applies to a biological system. And show your numbers.

Prediction: Stipe is pulling stories out of the darkness and doesn't even know how to calculate entropy, much less apply it to biology, so we'll never see any numbers.

And the question remains unanswered. How does the sun power genome betterment?

Pretty straightforward, really.
Radiant energy from the Sun is used by plants to make sugar. This is metabolized in mitochondria to produce ATP, which allows cellular processes to proceed, including meiosis and DNA replication.

That process sometimes produces an error. Usually, it doesn't do much of anything, and there's no observable change in the offspring. Occasionally, it's harmful and reduces the likelihood of an organism living long enough to reproduce. Every so often, it increases the likelihood of an organism living long enough to reproduce. And each generation, the genome of a population tends to become more fitted to the environment in which it lives.

This is pretty basic. Even most creationists admit that much. You don't have to accept common descent of all living things to recognize the observed fact that energy from the sun allows reproduction, in which mutation and natural selection improve the genome of a population.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Which is nowhere near an accurate statement. If a tornado (increased energy) blasts through a town (open system), entropy increases.

It takes informed action to decrease entropy, and that only locally. Sometimes even that is not good enough.


It's called physical necessity. Everything in science must adhere to the facts of science. Evolution has to face the challenges posed to it by reality, not insist that physics bow to the theory.

This is the problem; evolutionists are brainwashed into desperately defending their religion at all costs. They do not practice science.

So, the challenge remains: Explain how the sun can increase the complexity of DNA.

Translation: See this apple? Its an orange. Anybody who is honest can see its a tennis ball. I get tiered of always trying to explain why it is a hammer.

 

[The Barbarian]

I would be interested in seeing evidence that any process required for evolution is ruled out by any law of thermodynamics.

If someone thinks so, but lacks the mathematical foundation to show it, I would be open to a detailed explanation in some other manner, so long as it doesn't contradict thermodynamics.

Anyone want to try?

 

[everready]

I would be interested in seeing evidence that any process required for evolution is ruled out by any law of thermodynamics.

If someone thinks so, but lacks the mathematical foundation to show it, I would be open to a detailed explanation in some other manner, so long as it doesn't contradict thermodynamics.

Anyone want to try?

Why would anyone want to try, your mind is wrapped around evolution.


everready

 

[Jonahdog]

Why would anyone want to try, your mind is wrapped around evolution.


everready

Because if anyone could do it they would win many many scientific prizes and lots of $.

Give it a try.

 

[6days]

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends,*it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould,*Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

And yet, you once again posted something you knew to be false.

Nope..... you are being dishonest.*

The quote is from a well know evolutionist. (Google him). The quote was after Gould death. And..... the evolutionist knew and understood Goulds position.*

"Collin Patterson, paleontologist said "If I knew of any, (evolutionary transitions) fossil or living, I would certainly have included them (in my book) . You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
......
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”*I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
.......
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question."

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists will do anything to avoid answering simple questions. How does the sun power a genome's increased diversity?

 

[6days]

I would be interested in seeing evidence that any process required for evolution is ruled out by any law of thermodynamics.

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. 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.

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.

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

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

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.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

 

[6days]

Evolutionists will do anything to avoid answering simple questions. How does the sun power a genome's increased diversity?

It doesn't. ..it can't.
The point you make is correct.

 

[Yorzhik]

Well spotted, did I say otherwise? :idunno:

Well, the fact that we are here obviously shows that great complexity exists and that a trail of evidence can be followed back to a time of apparent lesser complexity is something I find rather more compelling than a mindless literal adherence to an ancient scripture.

Obviously common descent is true... we're here!

Time for your eyes to glaze over again, alwight, there is no trail of evidence you can point to. Feel free to yell "consensus" as if it's evidence.

 

[Jonahdog]

It doesn't. ..it can't.
The point you make is correct.

Your lack of understanding, or desire to understand remains astounding.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
I would be interested in seeing evidence that any process required for evolution is ruled out by any law of thermodynamics.

(6days can't think of one)

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. 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.

Hmm... I see simple seeds become complex plants. I see complex storm systems like hurricanes develop from nothing more than gravity, heat, and the Earth's rotation. So you lose on that one. Order is not the opposite of entropy. Got anything else?

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Since we observe all sorts of increases in order occuring naturally, you've lost that one.

Try to focus. Find a process, necessary for evolution, that is ruled out by thermodynamics.

Name the process, and show why it's impossible.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow

As you know, it's directly observed. Natural selection leads to increased fitness, and even most creationists admit that.

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.

It's true that if you keep adding energy from outside, entropy will decrease thereby. So evolution, weather, plants, and the like will continue until that ceases.

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.

Well, let's take a look at this idea. Suppose we have a simple heat machine, such as a Stirling engine.

Entropy declining in an open system

So long as energy continues to be added, entropy decreases. As soon as energy is no longer added, the different parts of the system become the same temperature, entropy is maximized, and the system halts.

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

This is demonstrably wrong. Even many creationists admit the fact of beneficial mutations. For example, the several mutations that allow Tibetans to live at high altitude, the Milano mutation that provides almost complete immunity to hardening of the arteries, and the muation that provides immunity to HIV and Bubonic plague, are all useful.

It appears that you don't understand what "entropy" actually is. In fact, disorder increases when entropy is minimized. In the case of the Stirling engine, when there is disorder in the energy of molecules in the engine, it can run. When the energy is distributed in an orderly manner, the engine stops.



You've been misled by people who are as ignorant as you are.