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

[genuineoriginal]

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.

Here are two problems with that:
Changing the number of chromosomes will most likely prevent reproduction.
Reproductive preferences in animals will most likely prevent the reproduction of animals that differ from the norm.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Therefore.......?

Have you stopped taking your meds?

So you don't believe scientists conspired to maintain the narrative of "small changes over long periods of time". So exactly how do you believe that narrative originated and persisted?

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

Ok. You're still not making the slightest bit of sense.

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.

??????? What in the world are you talking about? You claimed that creationists have identified problems. I'm asking you to show where they did. Can you give examples or not?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So you don't believe scientists conspired to maintain the narrative of "small changes over long periods of time".

You are a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Silent Hunter]

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, we all know how physicists, engineers, cosmologists, chemists, and everyone else involved in the physical sciences choose to ignore… science.

I can't wait .

Clarke’s third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

I’m sure you have a point, no one know what your point is, but, I’m sure you have one.

How about these:

Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.

Any scientific law, no matter how simple, is magic to those who don't understand it.

It is impossible to create a parody of creationism so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the real thing.​

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.​

I think I said this before, the FLoT explains considerably more than your simplistic, uninformed, uneducated, first-phrase-that-caught-my-attention understanding.

Here are some questions and answers appearing on the web site you so proudly think affirms your assertion(s):

You know how matter cannot be created nor destroyed? why is Einstein's fromula E=mc² valid i mean matter can turn into energy so doesn't that mean that it is created?

(1) The conservation of matter is misleading. The conservation of energy is misleading. It is the conservation of mass AND energy that holds true. Einstein's formula states their relationship.

(2) E=mc² defined just the relationship between mass and energy and also states that mass is just condensed energy (m=E/c²).​

Sal describes the first law of thermodynamics. however, isn't it the law of conservation of energy?

Indeed the first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy.​

Oh, yeah, and did you watch the video too?

Did you hear (read, since it’s sub-titled, there’s also a transcript) where he says, “I have yet to give you the first law of thermodynamics:

And I think now is as good a time as any. The first law of thermodynamics. And it's a good one. It tells us that energy… energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form or another. So energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.”​

The real kicker is he uses tossing a BALL to illustrate the concept… amazing!

Perhaps you should find another web site where the FLoT is “understood correctly”; this one’s not it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Here are two problems with that:
Changing the number of chromosomes will most likely prevent reproduction.
Reproductive preferences in animals will most likely prevent the reproduction of animals that differ from the norm.

I accept these as assertions but nothing more. We have seen in humans that a duplicate chromosome does not inhibit reproduction. Dup15q Syndrome and Chromosome Xq duplication are two examples.

Given the nature of sexual selection, any difference from the norm that gives the animal and advantage is likely to be selected for, not against.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Sal describes the first law of thermodynamics. however, isn't it the law of conservation of energy?

Indeed the first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy.​

It is sad to think that we have so many generations of people that have been taught how to turn their brains off when it comes to science.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Here are two problems with that:
Changing the number of chromosomes will most likely prevent reproduction.
Reproductive preferences in animals will most likely prevent the reproduction of animals that differ from the norm.

I accept these as assertions but nothing more. We have seen in humans that a duplicate chromosome does not inhibit reproduction. Dup15q Syndrome and Chromosome Xq duplication are two examples.

Given the nature of sexual selection, any difference from the norm that gives the animal and advantage is likely to be selected for, not against.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Sal describes the first law of thermodynamics. however, isn't it the law of conservation of energy?

Indeed the first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy.​

It is sad to think that we have so many generations of people that have been taught how to turn their brains off when it comes to science.

I've been trying to help you understand but it's hard to fathom why you'd rather be ignorant than informed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is sad to think that we have so many generations of people that have been taught how to turn their brains off when it comes to science.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It is sad to think that we have so many generations of people that have been taught how to turn their brains off when it comes to science.

One question... did you blow any type of liquid through your nose when you read his post? Just wondering.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I've been trying to help you understand but it's hard to fathom why you'd rather be ignorant than informed.

Do you believe that electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and quantum physics are one and the same thing?

 

[Jose Fly]

You are a conspiracy theorist?

This is what you stated: "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."

Do you believe when they "introduced the concept of tiny changes over vast amounts of time" they were justified in doing so?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you believe when they "introduced the concept of tiny changes over vast amounts of time" they were justified in doing so?

Darwin can be credited with the idea in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life.

It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?​

 

[Jose Fly]

Darwin can be credited with the idea in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life.

You're dodging. Again, do you believe when "evolutionists introduced the concept of tiny changes over vast amounts of time" they were justified in doing so?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're dodging. Again, do you believe when "evolutionists introduced the concept of tiny changes over vast amounts of time" they were justified in doing so?

You seem to have an agenda, where are you going with this?

 

[Silent Hunter]

I've been trying to help you understand but it's hard to fathom why you'd rather be ignorant than informed.

Do you believe that electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and quantum physics are one and the same thing?

No; however, properties of each can be used to describe properties of the other(s). Many scientific laws and scientific theories are interrelated in some way. E = mc² can be used to supplement and describe properties of the FLoT. Electromagnetism has the capacity to do work and thermodynamics can be used to describe it. Quantum mechanics is used in conjunction with Special Relativity to describe the interaction of subatomic particles.

 

[Jose Fly]

You seem to have an agenda, where are you going with this?

No agenda. But you seem extremely reluctant to answer a pretty basic question about what you believe.

The fact that you've put far more effort into dodging the question than it would have taken to just answer it is extremely revealing.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No agenda.

Then why do you keep asking the same question over and over?

 

[genuineoriginal]

No; however, properties of each can be used to describe properties of the other(s). Many scientific laws and scientific theories are interrelated in some way. E = mc² can be used to supplement and describe properties of the FLoT. Electromagnetism has the capacity to do work and thermodynamics can be used to describe it. Quantum mechanics is used in conjunction with Special Relativity to describe the interaction of subatomic particles.

The different disciplines of science may be able to be used to supplement and describe properties of other disciplines. The different disciplines often work together to define more than any one would be able to do by itself. That does not mean that the different disciplines should be treated as if they are completely interchangeable as is being done with the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then why do you keep asking the same question over and over?

Because you refuse to answer it. :duh: