Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[CabinetMaker]

This the best definition of entropy to consider when discussing evolution because it focuses on the actual problem identified by Creationists: the effects of random mutations will result in evolutionary dead ends in overwhelming numbers, preventing the evolution of species from a common ancestor from ever happening. The more mutations that occur, the greater the likelihood of producing an evolutionary dead end. The more specialized a species is, the greater the likelihood that minor changes in the environment will exterminate that species.

Random mutations can be beneficial, neutral or detrimental. Since they are random, there is no way to tell what a specific mutation will be until it is expressed as allele. You seem predisposed towards a position of all mutations are bad. This is why I don't recognize you as a valid authority for creating a new definition for genetic entropy. You are not approaching the discussion from a neutral point of view. While I do not disagree with you in that God did it, I am very interested in how He did it. Evolution was created by God to meet His purpose. But that does not mean that we cannot understand the process.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I don't think the boundary issue is necessary.

The challenge to evolution is from entropy, not from thermodynamics. A local decrease in entropy is possible, but in such cases, the process is describable and reasonable.

When it comes to the proposal that fish evolved into people, Darwinists need to describe how their energy source adds information to a population's genome.

They only have their assertion that random mutations and natural selection can do it, which is begging the question.

Energy does not add information, the added energy overcomes entropy.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Random mutations can be beneficial, neutral or detrimental. Since they are random, there is no way to tell what a specific mutation will be until it is expressed as allele.

Yep.

You seem predisposed towards a position of all mutations are bad. This is why I don't recognize you as a valid authority for creating a new definition for genetic entropy.

I never claimed that all mutations are bad, just that there are many mutations that evolutionists take for granted that would prevent reproduction.
A mutation that changes the number of chromosomes in a species would have high evolutionary entropy and would typically result in an evolutionary dead end because the animal would typically be sterile.
A mutation that changes the amount of melanin in the skin due to high or low exposure to sunlight would have low evolutionary entropy and would not typically result in an evolutionary dead end and could be a beneficial mutation that becomes desirable in the species/breed.
A mutation that changes the scent of an animal and makes it offensive to the other animals in the species would have high evolutionary entropy and would typically result in an evolutionary dead end since the other animals would not breed with it.
A mutation that increases the appearance of the tail feathers of a bird that makes it more attractive to the other birds in the species would have a low or even negative evolutionary entropy and would increase the reproduction of the birds with that mutation.

You are not approaching the discussion from a neutral point of view.

Neither are you.
That does not mean either of us are right or wrong, merely that our own biases are coloring our perceptions of the issues.

While I do not disagree with you in that God did it, I am very interested in how He did it. Evolution was created by God to meet His purpose. But that does not mean that we cannot understand the process.

The Bible states that few representatives of the animals were preserved on the ark that Noah built.
All the current animals on earth are descended from those animals.
There is evidence for mutations and adaptations in animals, and animal husbandry has been used to exploit these mutations and adaptations.
The debate is not about whether animals mutate or adapt, it is about whether fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, trees, grains, etc. all came from the same common ancestor.

 

[Right Divider]

Energy does not add information, the added energy overcomes entropy.

Raw energy does not overcome entropy. Energy needs direction to overcome entropy.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yep.


I never claimed that all mutations are bad, just that there are many mutations that evolutionists take for granted that would prevent reproduction.
A mutation that changes the number of chromosomes in a species would have high evolutionary entropy and would typically result in an evolutionary dead end because the animal would typically be sterile.
A mutation that changes the amount of melanin in the skin due to high or low exposure to sunlight would have low evolutionary entropy and would not typically result in an evolutionary dead end and could be a beneficial mutation that becomes desirable in the species/breed.
A mutation that changes the scent of an animal and makes it offensive to the other animals in the species would have high evolutionary entropy and would typically result in an evolutionary dead end since the other animals would not breed with it.
A mutation that increases the appearance of the tail feathers of a bird that makes it more attractive to the other birds in the species would have a low or even negative evolutionary entropy and would increase the reproduction of the birds with that mutation.


Neither are you.
That does not mean either of us are right or wrong, merely that our own biases are coloring our perceptions of the issues.


The Bible states that few representatives of the animals were preserved on the ark that Noah built.
All the current animals on earth are descended from those animals.
There is evidence for mutations and adaptations in animals, and animal husbandry has been used to exploit these mutations and adaptations.
The debate is not about whether animals mutate or adapt, it is about whether fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, trees, grains, etc. all came from the same common ancestor.

That depends how far back the common ancestor was. I do not believe that mammals evolved from fish. There are to many differences. My thought is that the common ancestor occurred at a time when life was just beginning and organisms were not much more than a few cells. A split occurred then, probably more than one, that has evolved into the tree of life we see today.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The debate is about whether fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, trees, grains, etc. all came from the same common ancestor.

That depends how far back the common ancestor was. I do not believe that mammals evolved from fish.

Did you accidentally misrepresent my position?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Did you accidentally misrepresent my position?

No. It is a fairly common claim so I started there. If you'll note, I did go on to state what I think a common ancestor. Possible but so far back in time that there is no fossil record.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No. It is a fairly common claim so I started there.

It is not a claim I made, and has nothing to do with the evolutionary entropy that I am talking about.

If you'll note, I did go on to state what I think a common ancestor. Possible but so far back in time that there is no fossil record.

Evolutionists have also known about evolutionary entropy for many years.
They know that a radical enough mutation would not be viable, so they introduced the concept of tiny changes over vast amounts of time to reduce the amount of evolutionary entropy from each change so reproduction could still be possible.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionists have also known about evolutionary entropy for many years.
They know that a radical enough mutation would not be viable, so they introduced the concept of tiny changes over vast amounts of time to reduce the amount of evolutionary entropy from each change so reproduction could still be possible.

Seriously? You truly think that's what evolutionary biologists plotted, implemented, and maintained over the course of 150 years or so? I just want to be clear....that's really what you think?

 

[Silent Hunter]

I’ve pointed out time and again, the FLoT explains considerably more than your simplistic, uninformed, uneducated, first-phrase-that-caught-my-attention understanding. The FLoT also, among a few other things, describes the conservation of energy...

You are not going to get away with the logical fallacy of Equivocation in this discussion.

In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.​

It is fortunate indeed that I am not guilty of this fallacy.

The first law of thermodynamics is not the law of conservation of energy, it is a subset of that law.

Wrong. The FLoT IS the law of conservation of energy.

The law of conservation of energy is not the first law of thermodynamics, it is a superset of that law.

Wrong. The law of conservation of energy IS the FLoT.

If you want to speak of the law of conservation of energy, use the right name and do not use equivocation.

If I can’t convince you, maybe Answers in Genesis can…

From AIG:

"In the early twentieth century, physicists came to realize that energy and mass are equivalent. Surprisingly, energy has mass, and matter has intrinsic energy due to its mass. Energy can be converted into matter, and the energy in matter can be liberated into other forms, following Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc², where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. This means the universe contains a tremendous amount of energy, not just in conventional forms but as matter.

So where is the problem for secular scientists? Physicists have long recognized the first law of thermodynamics - that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since matter and energy are equivalent, the sudden appearance of all the matter in the universe would violate this fundamental physical law. So, for a long time, physicists thought the universe was eternal, that it had always existed. This certainly would avoid the problem with the first law of thermodynamics, often called the (law of) conservation of energy".​

Now might be a good time for you to claim Dr. D.R. Faulkner at AIG wasn’t taught correctly the conservation of energy, the conservation of mass, and the Theory of Relativity.

… and its corollary, the conservation of mass (if you don’t know what “corollary” means, I suggest you look it up).

I never, ever claimed Einstein’s equation, E = mc² was a part of the FLoT or any other law of thermodynamics. If I did I would appreciate you quoting the portion of the post, with post #, where I did so.

Einstein’s equation, E = mc² can be rearranged to derive, m = E/c², the mass (matter) – energy equivalence. Einstein’s equation, among other things, says energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable.

Since one of the qualities directly described by the FLoT is the conservation of energy (in a closed system) the corollary, the conservation of mass (matter) is proved by Einstein’s equation, which is all I have ever claimed it does.
…
Why do you keep saying special relativity is part of the FLoT? It never has been, it isn’t, it never will be, and I’ve never claimed otherwise.

You made the claim that Einstein's equation E = mc² is part of the first law of thermodynamics right there for everyone to see.

Since what I wrote is essentially what Dr. D. R. Faulkner wrote in his AIG article (with more detail), now might be another good time for you to claim he wasn’t taught correctly the conservation of energy, the conservation of mass, and the Theory of Relativity.

You did it by algebraically rearranging the equation in order to use it to create the concept of conservation of mass and added it to the first law of thermodynamics.

Yes, I sure did. The relationships between those three concepts allow me to do it. As CabinetMaker told you, “What he says is correct” – post 332, and, “That may be the best you can hope for if you lack the necessary technical background. At some point the conversation will advance to a point that you are no longer able to understand” – post 394.

It would see we reached that “point” some time ago.

The original point was your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity violated/violates a fundamental principle of the FLoT, energy and mass/matter in a closed system cannot be created (added) or destroyed (removed), they can only change state.

The Universe is a closed system. It’s a little difficult to add to “everything that exists” without violating the FLoT. THIS was the “original point” of our conversation btw.

Since when does “THE Universe” not describe everything that exists? The outer boundary of everything that exists must, I think, be a closed system. Where would you draw the outer boundary of everything that exists?

God creating the universe is a foundational belief in Christianity and Judaism.

This is a faith-based position. Religious beliefs are not often, if ever… ok… NEVER scientifically verifiable.

From Genesis to Revelation the Bible tells us that God made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them.

So what? Special pleading your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity into existence isn’t an argument.

Acts 14:15

Yeah, I know what Paul thought about his-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity. Should I be impressed?

UniverseThe Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, and all other forms of matter and energy.

God is not included in the definition of the universe.

Aside from special pleading, not understanding why you can’t add energy and/or mass to a closed system in relation to the FLoT (isolating your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from the “universe” is another case of special pleading btw), and moving the goalposts, you’ve put together yet another rather convincing argument for why you don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Seriously?

Yes, I am being serious.

You truly think that's what evolutionary biologists plotted, implemented, and maintained over the course of 150 years or so? I just want to be clear....that's really what you think?

What you just stated is clearly a departure from what I stated, so it is obviously not what I think.

What I stated about the problems identified by creationists and evolutionists is originally found in Charles Darwin's writings.
My definition of evolutionary entropy is about whether these problems will result in evolution or evolutionary dead ends.

With respect to the almost universal sterility of species when first crossed, which forms so remarkable a contrast with the almost universal fertility of varieties when crossed, I must refer the reader to the recapitulation of the facts given at the end of the eighth chapter, which seem to me conclusively to show that this sterility is no more a special endowment than is the incapacity of two trees to be grafted together, but that it is incidental on constitutional differences in the reproductive systems of the intercrossed species. We see the truth of this conclusion in the vast difference in the result, when the same two species are crossed reciprocally; that is, when one species is first used as the father and then as the mother.

The fertility of varieties when intercrossed and of their mongrel offspring cannot be considered as universal; nor is their very general fertility surprising when we remember that it is not likely that either their constitutions or their reproductive systems should have been profoundly modified. Moreover, most of the varieties which have been experimentised on have been produced under domestication; and as domestication apparently tends to eliminate sterility, we ought not to expect it also to produce sterility.

The sterility of hybrids is a very different case from that of first crosses, for their reproductive organs are more or less functionally impotent; whereas in first crosses the organs on both sides are in a perfect condition. As we continually see that organisms of all kinds are rendered in some degree sterile from their constitutions having been disturbed by slightly different and new conditions of life, we need not feel surprise at hybrids being in some degree sterile, for their constitutions can hardly fail to have been disturbed from being compounded of two distinct organisations. This parallelism is supported by another parallel, but directly opposite, class of facts; namely, that the vigour and fertility of all organic beings are increased by slight changes in their conditions of life, and that the offspring of slightly modified forms or varieties acquire from being crossed increased vigour and fertility. So that, on the one hand, considerable changes in the conditions of life and crosses between greatly modified forms, lessen fertility; and on the other hand, lesser changes in the conditions of life and crosses between less modified forms, increase fertility.

Turning to geographical distribution, the difficulties encountered on the theory of descent with modification are grave enough. All the individuals of the same species, and all the species of the same genus, or even higher group, must have descended from common parents; and therefore, in however distant and isolated parts of the world they are now found, they must in the course of successive generations have passed from some one part to the others. We are often wholly unable even to conjecture how this could have been effected. Yet, as we have reason to believe that some species have retained the same specific form for very long periods, enormously long as measured by years, too much stress ought not to be laid on the occasional wide diffusion of the same species; for during very long periods of time there will always be a good chance for wide migration by many means. A broken or interrupted range may often be accounted for by the extinction of the species in the intermediate regions. It cannot be denied that we are as yet very ignorant of the full extent of the various climatal and geographical changes which have affected the earth during modern periods; and such changes will obviously have greatly facilitated migration. As an example, I have attempted to show how potent has been the influence of the Glacial period on the distribution both of the same and of representative species throughout the world. We are as yet profoundly ignorant of the many occasional means of transport. With respect to distinct species of the same genus inhabiting very distant and isolated regions, as the process of modification has necessarily been slow, all the means of migration will have been possible during a very long period; and consequently the difficulty of the wide diffusion of species of the same genus is in some degree lessened.

As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos? With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly connecting links between them, but only between each and some extinct and supplanted form. Even on a wide area, which has during a long period remained continuous, and of which the climate and other conditions of life change insensibly in going from a district occupied by one species into another district occupied by a closely allied species, we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in the intermediate zone. For we have reason to believe that only a few species are undergoing change at any one period; and all changes are slowly effected. I have also shown that the intermediate varieties which will at first probably exist in the intermediate zones, will be liable to be supplanted by the allied forms on either hand; and the latter, from existing in greater numbers, will generally be modified and improved at a quicker rate than the intermediate varieties, which exist in lesser numbers; so that the intermediate varieties will, in the long run, be supplanted and exterminated.

On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world's history.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

It is fortunate indeed that I am not guilty of this fallacy.

Wrong. The FLoT IS the law of conservation of energy.

Wrong. The law of conservation of energy IS the FLoT.

You keep proving that you are wrong and are guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation.

If I can’t convince you, maybe Answers in Genesis can…

From AIG:

"In the early twentieth century, physicists came to realize that energy and mass are equivalent. Surprisingly, energy has mass, and matter has intrinsic energy due to its mass. Energy can be converted into matter, and the energy in matter can be liberated into other forms, following Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc², where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. This means the universe contains a tremendous amount of energy, not just in conventional forms but as matter.

So where is the problem for secular scientists? Physicists have long recognized the first law of thermodynamics - that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since matter and energy are equivalent, the sudden appearance of all the matter in the universe would violate this fundamental physical law. So, for a long time, physicists thought the universe was eternal, that it had always existed. This certainly would avoid the problem with the first law of thermodynamics, often called the (law of) conservation of energy".​

Now might be a good time for you to claim Dr. D.R. Faulkner at AIG wasn’t taught correctly the conservation of energy, the conservation of mass, and the Theory of Relativity.

Yes, it is wrong of Dr. D.R. Faulkner at AIG to conflate Special Relativity with conservation of energy and claim that it is the first law of thermodynamics.
His being wrong does not make you right.

This is a faith-based position. Religious beliefs are not often, if ever… ok… NEVER scientifically verifiable.

Science needs to catch up, then.

*(Let me know if you want me to quote Arthur C. Clark.)

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I am being serious.

Wow.

What you just stated is clearly a departure from what I stated, so it is obviously not what I think.

So you don't believe scientists just made up "small changes over long periods of time" and then conspired to maintain that narrative?

What I stated about the problems identified by creationists and evolutionists is originally found in Charles Darwin's writings.
My definition of evolutionary entropy is about whether these problems will result in evolution or evolutionary dead ends.

Ok, I gotta be honest here.....you're not making any sense at all. The part you quote from Darwin says nothing about "genetic entropy" (which stands to reason, as no one really knew about genetics at that time). This is really bizarre.

Also, earlier I asked you to show where creationists have "identified" anything, and you ignored it. Care to give it a shot this time?

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is not a claim I made, and has nothing to do with the evolutionary entropy that I am talking about.

Evolutionists have also known about evolutionary entropy for many years.
They know that a radical enough mutation would not be viable, so they introduced the concept of tiny changes over vast amounts of time to reduce the amount of evolutionary entropy from each change so reproduction could still be possible.

AH yes, the genetic monster. That is what I heard it called in college. The idea that a totally new species springs forth fully functional.

The idea of tiny changes is supported by most strict creationists since that best fits the idea of a relatively few animals coming off the arc and proliferating into what we have today. Many creationists call it adaption. Adaptation and evolution, therefore, rely on the same mechanism - tiny changes over time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So you don't believe scientists just made up "small changes over long periods of time"

You need to start with assumptions when developing a scientific theory.

While assumptions are often incorporated during the formation of new theories, these are either supported by evidence (such as from previously existing theories) or the evidence is produced in the course of validating the theory. This may be as simple as observing that the theory makes accurate predictions, which is evidence that any assumptions made at the outset are correct or approximately correct under the conditions tested.​

and then conspired to maintain that narrative?

Have you stopped taking your meds?

Ok, I gotta be honest here.....you're not making any sense at all. The part you quote from Darwin says nothing about "genetic entropy" (which stands to reason, as no one really knew about genetics at that time). This is really bizarre.

The definition I gave was for evolutionary entropy, not genetic entropy.

Here is a definition I believe is useful:
Evolutionary entropy is referring to number of possible states that would the prevention of the biological process of reproduction. Low evolutionary entropy means there is little to prevent an organism from reproducing and having offspring. High evolutionary entropy would mean there are so many factors that could prevent an organism from reproducing and having offspring that extinction is the most probable outcome. Evolutionary entropy includes everything that has been identified as causing extinction in any species as well as everything that has caused individual organisms to die without producing any offspring. The amount of evolutionary entropy in a species is the average of the evolutionary entropy in the entire population of the species.

Also, earlier I asked you to show where creationists have "identified" anything, and you ignored it. Care to give it a shot this time?

You seem to have a different definition for "identified" than is commonly used among people that speak English.
Please use the definitions the rest of us use from here on out.

 

[genuineoriginal]

AH yes, the genetic monster. That is what I heard it called in college. The idea that a totally new species springs forth fully functional.

The idea of tiny changes is supported by most strict creationists since that best fits the idea of a relatively few animals coming off the arc and proliferating into what we have today. Many creationists call it adaption.

We seem to have reached agreement on these points.
:thumb:

Adaptation and evolution, therefore, rely on the same mechanism - tiny changes over time.

That is where my definition of evolutionary entropy comes into play.
Can the tiny changes over time that are accepted by evolutionists that are rejected by creationists support reproduction or not?

 

[Silent Hunter]

It is fortunate indeed that I am not guilty of this fallacy.

Wrong. The FLoT IS the law of conservation of energy.

Wrong. The law of conservation of energy IS the FLoT.

You keep proving that you are wrong and are guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Interestingly, you cannot show where I am wrong except to misstate everything I’m trying to teach you in incorrect term and by showing your total inability to grasp simple concepts.

CabinetMaker was right, “At some point the conversation will advance to a point that you, genuineoriginal, are no longer able to understand” – post 394.

It would seem you reached that “point” some time ago.

If I can’t convince you, maybe Answers in Genesis can…

From AIG:

"In the early twentieth century, physicists came to realize that energy and mass are equivalent. Surprisingly, energy has mass, and matter has intrinsic energy due to its mass. Energy can be converted into matter, and the energy in matter can be liberated into other forms, following Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc², where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. This means the universe contains a tremendous amount of energy, not just in conventional forms but as matter.

So where is the problem for secular scientists? Physicists have long recognized the first law of thermodynamics - that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Since matter and energy are equivalent, the sudden appearance of all the matter in the universe would violate this fundamental physical law. So, for a long time, physicists thought the universe was eternal, that it had always existed. This certainly would avoid the problem with the first law of thermodynamics, often called the (law of) conservation of energy".​

Now might be a good time for you to claim Dr. D.R. Faulkner at AIG wasn’t taught correctly the conservation of energy, the conservation of mass, and the Theory of Relativity.

Yes, it is wrong of Dr. D.R. Faulkner at AIG to conflate Special Relativity with conservation of energy and claim that it is the first law of thermodynamics.
His being wrong does not make you right.

Just to be clear who we’re talking about:

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner joined the staff of Answers in Genesis after more than 26 years as professor of physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina Lancaster.

I find it just a little too hard to believe AIG would take on staff a professor of physics who doesn’t understand the laws of thermodynamics and the relationship(s) they share with Special Relativity.

Perhaps YOU should apply for the job to replace him since you seem to think you know more about the subject(s) than he does.

*(Let me know if you want me to quote Arthur C. Clark.)

I can't wait .

 

[genuineoriginal]

Just to be clear who we’re talking about:

Dr. Danny R. Faulkner joined the staff of Answers in Genesis after more than 26 years as professor of physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina Lancaster.

I find it just a little too hard to believe AIG would take on staff a professor of physics who doesn’t understand the laws of thermodynamics and the relationship(s) they share with Special Relativity.

I don't find it hard to believe.
The error you are stuck on has been taught to several generations of scientists who either are not aware of the error or choose to ignore it.

I can't wait .

 

[CabinetMaker]

We seem to have reached agreement on these points.
:thumb:

That is where my definition of evolutionary entropy comes into play.
Can the tiny changes over time that are accepted by evolutionists that are rejected by creationists support reproduction or not?

Yes, No and maybe. Seriously. Remember, any single mutation is indeterminate until expressed as an allele. One thing that this conversation has been lacking is environmental stress and the roll it plays in adaptation and evolution. A single mutation may be highly beneficial in one environment id detrimental in another. The short answer to your question is yes, on the whole, tiny changes can and do support reproduction.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The error you are stuck on has been taught to several generations of scientists who either are not aware of the error or choose to ignore it.

There are some places that are teaching it correctly:

What is the first law of thermodynamics?
The first law of thermodynamics applies the conservation of energy principle to systems where heat transfer and doing work are the methods of transferring energy into and out of the system.​