Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

You have to go further than that.

Plate tectonics: lies!
A moving earth: lies!
Planets that orbit the sun: lies!
A round earth: lies!

And creationists can't figure out why no one takes them seriously.....:rotfl:

Yet they are certain slapping the label "Christian" on themselves gives them credibility and respectability.

 

[Stripe]

You didn't state a physical law.

:rotfl:

Sorry. Entropy is a fact of reality. You asking for evidence that it exists shows how desperate you ate to protect your evolutionism from criticism.

And you have still not answered the question. How does the sun power increased complexity in a genome?

 

[gcthomas]

Sorry. Entropy is a fact of reality. You asking for evidence that it exists shows how desperate you ate to protect your evolutionism from criticism.

Of course entropy exists as a key concept in thermodynamics.

Also certain is that you have no working understanding of the principles involving entropy.

There is no principle that says everything tends towards disorder, but your belief in that is colouring the whole discussion.

Why do you think that everything tends towards disorder when the laws of thermodynamics require no such thing?

 

[6days]

.....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.

Actually you see extremely complex seeds become plants when energy is added.*

I see complex storm systems like hurricanes develop from nothing more than gravity, heat, and the Earth's rotation.

Yes... we do see storms ( not as complex as a seed which you called simple). But the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you don't understand, *holds. (Earth rotation slows, heat decreases till eventual 'heat death'.)

So you lose on that one.*

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

You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Our planet receives energy from the sun which is losing energy. *

"There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law ..."

(Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics:*physicists G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos)

So you lose on that one. isn't this fun!

Natural selection leads to increased fitness

Natural selection is a process of elimination. Those who are less fit reproduce less or die. Even the 'fit' surviving populations tend to decrease in fitness over time.

So you lose on that one.*

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.

You have been mislead on that. There are some relatively rare mutations which have beneficial outcomes....Most, if not all mutations with a beneficial outcome have destroyed pre-existing information. For example in chromosomal mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell *function is routinely lost.(Such as a loss of specificity of an enzyme).

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

You have been mislead by the those who proclaim themselves to be wise but have become fools denying the truth of God's Word.*

 

[Stripe]

There is no principle that says everything tends towards disorder, but your belief in that is colouring the whole discussion.

It's called entropy. We know why you do not want to acknowledge its existence; you want to protect your evolutionism.

Let us know when you're willing to give up your religion and talk science. :up:

 

[gcthomas]

Of course entropy exists as a key concept in thermodynamics.

Also certain is that you have no working understanding of the principles involving entropy.

It's called entropy. We know why you do not want to acknowledge its existence; you want to protect your evolutionism.

Huh? Are you stupid or what? Did you fail to read or understand what I wrote, even when I used short words?

YOU do not understand entropy, idiot. Try learning some Physics. Then you will be able to write coherently, perhaps.
:wave:

 

[Jose Fly]

Now it looks like 6days acknowledges the reality of natural selection and beneficial mutations. I'm pretty sure Stripe says those things don't happen either.

So I wonder....what is this "Biblical model of creation"? Under this model, do populations evolve? Do new species evolve? Does it include natural selection? Does it include beneficial mutations? Does it include plate tectonics?

Maybe you guys should take a break and think a bit on these very basic questions.

 

[noguru]

It's called entropy. We know why you do not want to acknowledge its existence; you want to protect your evolutionism.

Let us know when you're willing to give up your religion and talk science. :up:

:rotfl:

Your efforts at repeating inaccuracies does not make them accurate.

 

[noguru]

Huh? Are you stupid or what? Did you fail to read or understand what I wrote, even when I used short words?

YOU do not understand entropy, idiot. Try learning some Physics. Then you will be able to write coherently, perhaps.
:wave:

Stripe lecturing on how to properly discuss science, is like Jeffrey Dahmer lecturing on being a vegetarian.

 

[noguru]

Now it looks like 6days acknowledges the reality of natural selection and beneficial mutations. I'm pretty sure Stripe says those things don't happen either.

So I wonder....what is this "Biblical model of creation"? Under this model, do populations evolve? Do new species evolve? Does it include natural selection? Does it include beneficial mutations? Does it include plate tectonics?

Maybe you guys should take a break and think a bit on these very basic questions.

They oppose whichever natural explanation gets in the way of promoting their stagnant dogmatic theology at any moment of a discussion. They do this without any foresight into having a cohesive and coherent argument for their own model.

 

[6days]

Now it looks like 6days acknowledges the reality of natural selection and beneficial mutations. I'm pretty sure Stripe says those things don't happen either.

As you we're shown before... we are in agreement. You must be forgetful?
See the thread 'Rapid Adaptation'

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Hmm... I see simple seeds become complex plants.

Actually you see extremely complex seeds become plants

Only in extreme denial creationsts do we see a claim that seems are more complex than plants. Show us your evidence that plants are no more complex than the seeds from which they grow.

when energy is added.

That's the "open system" part. Entropy can decline when there are energy inputs.

Barbarian observes:
I see complex storm systems like hurricanes develop from nothing more than gravity, heat, and the Earth's rotation.

Yes... we do see storms ( not as complex as a seed which you called simple).

Sounds unlikely. Let's see your numbers. Prediction: 6days is making up stories again, and will not show us the relative complexity of these two things.

But the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you don't understand,

So let's test your understanding.

Take a chessboard. Number the squares from 1 to 64.

Now three cases:

1. a coin on every even-numbered square.
2. a coin on every square with a number evenly divisible by three, unless it is also evenly divisible by four.
3. For each square flip a coin and place a coin on the square if the result is heads.

Now tell us which of those has the most entropy, and which has the least entropy. You won't even have to do math. Good luck.

(Earth rotation slows, heat decreases till eventual 'heat death'.)

Unless, of course heat continues to come in from an outside source. The Stirling engine I showed you runs only so long as there is sufficient disorder to maintain a difference between the hot and cold sides of the motor. Once heat becomes completely ordered and the same throughout, the motor stops.

Is there more entropy before or after the temperature is uniform throughout?

And you still haven't shown us one phenomenon necessary for evolution that is ruled out by any law of thermodynamics.

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

You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Our planet receives energy from the Sun, which is losing energy. So entropy gains on the Sun, but is decreased on the Earth.

Barbarian observes:
Natural selection leads to increased fitness

Natural selection is a process of elimination.

And preservation. This is why a new and useful mutation can rapidly spread through a population. If it gives the organisms having it an advantage over the old genome, it produces a new and different population. So it's both.

Even the 'fit' surviving populations tend to decrease in fitness over time.

No, you got that wrong, too. For example, Tibetans are much more fit to live at high altitudes than their Chinese ancestors. Western Europeans tend to be much more resistant to bubonic plague and HIV than their ancestors.

You lose again.

6days writes:
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

Barbarian chuckles:
This is demonstrably wrong. Even many creationists admit the fact of beneficial mutations. I've already shown you some of them. There are a lot more. Would you like to see some more?

There are some relatively rare mutations which have beneficial outcomes....Most, if not all mutations with a beneficial outcome have destroyed pre-existing information.

But you don't even know what "information" is, or even how to calculate it. So you're just waving your hands, hoping that your new vocabulary will impress us.

For example in chromosomal mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell *function is routinely lost.(Such as a loss of specificity of an enzyme).

Nope. In fact, it's usually from a gene duplication, which leaves the old enzyme intact while producing a new one. C'mon, you've been shown that, too.

You've been misled by people who are as ignorant as you are. You have been mislead by the those who proclaim themselves to be wise but have become fools rejecting God's Word, and substituting the YE doctrines invented by Seventh-Day Adventists.

Don't forget to show us those numbers, hear? Prediction: 6days will again dodge all questions.

 

[Jose Fly]

As you we're shown before... we are in agreement. You must be forgetful?
See the thread 'Rapid Adaptation

'No. You still post about populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection as if they actually happen, whereas Stripe still says they don't.

Oh, and you still haven't answered: which is in a lower state of entropy, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, or a water molecule?

 

[DavisBJ]

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, best proved 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. … the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease …

Making absolutist statements as strong as these are usually leads to trouble. If I setup an isolated system that meets the usual criteria (no energy going in or out of the system, no mass entering or leaving the system, highly disordered to start, but then at a later time find it highly ordered), would you admit this is hyperbole?

 

[noguru]

Making absolutist statements as strong as these are usually leads to trouble. If I setup an isolated system that meets the usual criteria (no energy going in or out of the system, no mass entering or leaving the system, highly disordered to start, but then at a later time find it highly ordered), would you admit this is hyperbole?

YECs have an aversion to educating themselves accurately. Because if they did educate themselves accurately they would be forced to discard their chosen model of origins, and then in their mind it becomes a slippery slope to hell.

 

[6days]

Making absolutist statements as strong as these are usually leads to trouble. If I setup an isolated system that meets the usual criteria (no energy going in or out of the system, no mass entering or leaving the system, highly disordered to start, but then at a later time find it highly ordered), would you admit this is hyperbole?

Sure.
Not sure what you have in mind, but it sounds fair.... if I can understand your example.
I might disagree with you though on what "highly ordered' is. Ex. Is a snowflake more highly ordered than a water molecule?

 

[6days]

You still post about populations evolving, speciation, and natural selection as if they actually happen, whereas Stripe still says they don't.

If you read the thread I suggested you will see we agree but sometimes use different terminology.
We agree that God 'programmed' organisms for diversity and survival, and that we live in a world that now has a corrupted creation.

Oh, and you still haven't answered: which is in a lower state of entropy, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, or a water molecule?

I'm not sure... Tell me....please.

 

[6days]

Actually you see extremely complex seeds become plants

Only in extreme denial creationsts do we see a claim that seems are more complex than plants. Show us your evidence that plants are no more complex than the seeds from which they grow.

I think you should try reading slower.

I also think you should stop creating strawman arguments. .. its dishonest.

Yes... we do see storms ( not as complex as a seed which you called simple).

Sounds unlikely. Let's see you numbers. Prediction: 6days is making up stories again, and will not show us the relative complexity of these two things.

Another evolutionists failed prediction.

A storm has no specified complex information such as that which exists in a cell within a seed.

Advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of the living cell. A few years ago, scientists decided to try simulate one of the smallest known genomes of any organism (525 gene). The scientists had "a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Interestingly, the article unwittingly suggests an Intelligent Designer may be responsible... "Now figure that millions of bacteria could fit on the head of a pin and that many of them are an order of magnitude more complex than M. genitalium. Or ponder the idea that the human body is made up of 10 trillion (big, complex) human cells, plus about 90 or 100 trillion bacterial cells. That's about 100,000,000,000,000 cells in total. That'd take a lot of computers to model, eh? If it were possible, that is."

Our cells are evidence of a designer... take a look at the picture in the article which gives just a small idea of the 'city with factories and robots' contained in the cell of every living organism.


Or, using a cell from our body as example....
The chemical code in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.

The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact of our Creator.
"I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well" Psalm 139:14

There are many great short videos which can give you an idea of the busy 'manufacturing city' within each of your cells. Here is one of the many videos trying to give you a glimpse; and keep in mind that this 'manufacturing city' is so tiny that up to 20,000 cells can fit within this '0'.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1256097/life_of_human_body_cell/

Natural selection is a process of elimination.

And preservation.

Sure... as evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis said...'natural selection eliminates and possibly maintains, but it doesn't create'.

This is why a new and useful mutation can rapidly spread through a population.

Even faster than the spread of your useful mutation is the spread of deleterious mutations ( it is impossible for natural selection to detect most mutations)causing an overall loss of fitness in the population. Genetic disorders increase.

Even the 'fit' surviving populations tend to decrease in fitness over time.

No, you got that wrong, too. For example, Tibetans are much more fit to live at high altitudes than their Chinese ancestors.

No, you got that wrong too. We may have lost the gene that the Tibetans have. That gene existed in the Denisovans.

There are some relatively rare mutations which have beneficial outcomes....Most, if not all mutations with a beneficial outcome have destroyed pre-existing information.

But you don't even know what "information" is, or even how to calculate it. So you're just waving your hands, hoping that your new vocabulary will impress us.

Specified complexity is a definition I have used here previously. Information theorists have written books on the topic, but you can also use google to help you understand biological information in our genome.
Ex. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/

Meanwhile, evolutionists typically are waving their hands not seeming to understand the difference between Shannon info and biological info.

For example in chromosomal mutations that lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell function is routinely lost.(Such as a loss of specificity of an enzyme).

Nope. In fact, it's usually from a gene duplication, which leaves the old enzyme intact while producing a new one. C'mon, you've been shown that, too.

A gene duplication, or transfer between bacteria, does NOT lead to antibiotic resistance. When chromosomal mutations lead to antibiotic resistance in bacteria, cell function is routinely lost. And it has been demonstrated that bacteria that 'develop' resistance are less fit in other environments.

 

[DavisBJ]

Sure.
Not sure what you have in mind, but it sounds fair.... if I can understand your example.
I might disagree with you though on what "highly ordered' is. Ex. Is a snowflake more highly ordered than a water molecule?

One of the classic examples for illustrating the tendency towards disorder is the mixing of gases. Specifically, I have two insulated containers, one with a gazillion oxygen molecules, and the other with a gazillion nitrogen molecules. Due to normal thermal agitation, all the molecules in each container are continually bouncing off each other and off the walls.

Now put the containers so they are connected, but a membrane between keeps the oxygen molecules from diffusing into the nitrogen container, and vice versa. Highly ordered system, because this is the only configuration that has every oxygen molecule at one end, and every nitrogen molecule at the other. If the membrane is removed, they will start to mix. How many configurations are possible once the mixing has started? Assume every molecule has a number on it. Very simple case, the #1 oxygen molecule moves into nitrogen territory. Another simple case, only the #2 oxygen molecule moves into nitrogen territory. This can be called the “state” of having just one oxygen molecule in the nitrogen territory. Considering just one oxygen molecule moving over gives us one gazillion possibilities. Another gazillion possibilities is when just one nitrogen molecule moves into oxygen territory.

If we then advance to the state of two molecules that have mixed, the numbers get huge quick. Maybe just the #1 oxygen and the #1 nitrogen molecules have mixed. Or #1 oxygen and number 86,444 oxygen. Or #242 nitrogen and #33 oxygen. Etc. Now move up to 3 molecules, then 4, and so on. The numbers quickly become astronomical.

After the mixing has started, the mixture will always be in one off these states, either totally segregated (only one way that can happen) or nitrogen and oxygen mixed (number of ways too big for this page).

No tricks. No trap doors, or filters, or anything beyond just looking at how many configurations are in each state, and deciding which state is the most likely it will be found in. Statistical mechanics (thermo from an atomic viewpoint) says the system will tend towards the states that have the highest number of possibilities – in other words, it will tend towards complete even mixing of the two types of molecules. You OK with this? The most unlikely state of all is the initial one, where it was totally ordered, with astronomical odds against it being the state once mixing has commenced.

 

[6days]

One of the classic examples for illustrating the tendency towards disorder is the mixing of gases. Specifically, I have two insulated containers, one with a gazillion oxygen molecules, and the other with a gazillion nitrogen molecules. Due to normal thermal agitation, all the molecules in each container are continually bouncing off each other and off the walls.

Now put the containers so they are connected, but a membrane between keeps the oxygen molecules from diffusing into the nitrogen container, and vice versa. Highly ordered system, because this is the only configuration that has every oxygen molecule at one end, and every nitrogen molecule at the other. If the membrane is removed, they will start to mix. How many configurations are possible once the mixing has started? Assume every molecule has a number on it. Very simple case, the #1 oxygen molecule moves into nitrogen territory. Another simple case, only the #2 oxygen molecule moves into nitrogen territory. This can be called the “state” of having just one oxygen molecule in the nitrogen territory. Considering just one oxygen molecule moving over gives us one gazillion possibilities. Another gazillion possibilities is when just one nitrogen molecule moves into oxygen territory.

If we then advance to the state of two molecules that have mixed, the numbers get huge quick. Maybe just the #1 oxygen and the #1 nitrogen molecules have mixed. Or #1 oxygen and number 86,444 oxygen. Or #242 nitrogen and #33 oxygen. Etc. Now move up to 3 molecules, then 4, and so on. The numbers quickly become astronomical.

After the mixing has started, the mixture will always be in one off these states, either totally segregated (only one way that can happen) or nitrogen and oxygen mixed (number of ways too big for this page).

No tricks. No trap doors, or filters, or anything beyond just looking at how many configurations are in each state, and deciding which state is the most likely it will be found in. Statistical mechanics (thermo from an atomic viewpoint) says the system will tend towards the states that have the highest number of possibilities – in other words, it will tend towards complete even mixing of the two types of molecules. You OK with this? The most unlikely state of all is the initial one, where it was totally ordered, with astronomical odds against it being the state once mixing has commenced.

Uh... Sorry Davis, but I have to plead ignorance. I tried googling this, and you might disagree with my answer but.....
I found similar type experiments... none as you describe. But from the few I looked at they called it "attempts at damming" or "tricks" . They said although it appears the 2nd law was 'broken' it really wasn't. It was also explained that "pretty patterns" that result does not mean order has truly increased.
Again..... Sorry, but I'm not understanding it good enough. I suspect you know that your experiment is not really breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics??