A calm debate

[Acriku]

Emprworm, my deepest apologies, I for some reason keep missing a lot of posts! I talked to Gob about this, I have no idea why it happens.

Ok, thanks for responding to it. Evidence for macroevolution obviously cannot be explained to someone in a few sentences. So I cannot fulfill your request. We have not been here long enough to observe macroevolution that I know of, but we do the next best thing. Find transitional and intermediate fossils that would describe the transition of a species into another, and it is found in whale fossils, http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

[nemafakei]

4th time lucky?

Why can't things develop so much genetically over time that it is impossible for them to breed? I don't quite understand your problem with this idea.

Please do not simply respond "There's no proof it has happened".

I am asking hypothetical questions, as should by now be obvious to you (If not, read more carefully).

Please respond why (ie the logical reasons) you believe that a species split up into two different environments for a long time (ie as long as it takes) without any interbreeding between groups, each improving slowly over time to suit the different climates cannot at some stage become genetically incompatible for breeding fertile offspring?

[emprworm]

Why can't things develop so much genetically over time that it is impossible for them to breed? Please do not simply respond "There's no proof it has happened".

lol. Well that's part of my response 'there is no proof.' the other part is that life has not been observed acting this way. such behavior goes against our observations of life's behavior. Life adapts.....in very limited ways....to its environment, but it does not become a new species- it has never been seen.

I could ask the same question to you:

Why can't the highly organized and massively complex network of life be the result of design? Please do not simply respond "There's no proof it has happened".

Basically, it comes down to belief and faith. Since I cannot PROVE design, by default that makes your theory POSSIBLE. And since you cannot PROVE your theory, that by default makes ID POSSIBLE. But you choose to believe the former, while I believe the latter. I know intelligence when I see it. Chaos does not generate intelligence. There is a lot of faith you must apply to evolution.

I don't quite understand your problem with this idea.

well this is it: chaos does not create intelligence. Takes faith to believe that.

Please respond why (ie the logical reasons) you believe that a species split up into two different environments for a long time (ie as long as it takes) without any interbreeding between groups, each improving slowly over time to suit the different climates cannot at some stage become genetically incompatible for breeding fertile offspring?

because there are many examples of animals on this planet that have been split up for a long time, all of them breedable. Second, because you assume the lifeforms are always improving, which is a faith based assumption. Consider lifeform A (LFA) in a warm tropical climate. LFA will adapt to the climate over time (improving?..). Then over time the tropical climate becomes a temperate climate. LFA now adapts to temperate climate. Now, if you were to put LFA immediately back in a tropcial climate, it would die. Was it an improvement for LFA to go from Tropical ==> Temperate? Is LFA any better now than he was before? i say no.

LFA just adapted to climates is all. It is not going through some remarkable 2001 Arthur C. Clarke evolutionary grandiose spectacular galactic cataclysmic wonderful ascension just because a few trees were removed from its environment. lol

[sneezer3]

Like i said before. Evolution don't make much since to me. Its hardly even a theory you can't get something from nothing. but then again i guess you can assume anything. :-

[Acriku]

Sneezer you don't understand it at all. At all Please do not criticize anything because you do not understand.

[emprworm]

lol, acriku, he's only 13 (i think).

he knows a lot for a 13 year old to be honest. I just wished he did a bit more independent thinking instead of letting J. Chick do his thinking, but o well, he seems like a good kid. not getting into trouble and stuff.

[Acriku]

Then again he needs to widen his sources...Getting tired of Chick's biased, rediculous views.

Also where in evolution does it say how life began? Riddle me this sneezer.

[TMA_1]

acriku, you only give indirect evidance. It is impossible to give direct evidance to macro evolution because of the time it would take you to see it happen. man by the time you see it happen you would be an old old old multithousand year old with a big beard! and none of us want a big beard like that... well I do.lol Seriously though, just understand that there is no direct proof you can give, just good indirect observations.

[emprworm]

a very nice piece regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and evolution:

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism.

open systems/closed systems: open thermodynamic systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings, closed systems do not. No outside energy flows into a closed system. Earth is an open system; it receives outside energy from the Sun.

Is Energy the Key?

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is "directionlessness," having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

-Author: Paul S. Taylor,

-

[Acriku]

Ah finally, someone pulls the old "2nd law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution" trick. Hehe :

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

I read yours, now you read mine.

[emprworm]

the problem with your rebuttal acriku, is that you did not explain the evidentiary facts that increased energy speeds decay, it does not increase order and says nothing about telenomy.

you really didn't even rebut the argument at all.

[Acriku]

If you read, 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to life at all.

Why does telonomy sound like a spinoff of ID theory?

[emprworm]

lol, of course it does!

ha! What are you talking about? Humans are composed of matter and energy and the 2nd law applies to all matter and energy in the universe. you will die, you will break down. you are breaking down even now as we speak. the human eye, for example, degenerates before you even reach puberty, it begins its downward spiral.

[Acriku]

Life is not a closed system, therefore 2nd LoTD (Lord of the Dynamics? ;)) does not apply to life.

[emprworm]

as i have already shown, an open system does not help evolution. i suggest you re-read that post again since you seemed to skip over the part about "open system, therefore doesn't apply"

click here:

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?action=display;board=2;threadid=7938;start=300#msg121360

[Acriku]

Emprworm, life and evolution is not a closed system. As long as people keep reproducing, it is an open system. When we stop reproducing, it becomes a closed system. Evolution occurs right at the moment of reproduction, so as long as we keep reproducing, it is an open system. Therefore, it does not apply.

[emprworm]

life has a propensity to lose information, it does not gain information. we just don't see life gaining new information, Acriku. Even the examples you have of life "evolving" is really not gaining any new information, if anything it is losing information (mutations)

[Acriku]

Not so. Mutations can involve insertions, where nucleotide bases are inserted into the DNA/RNA.

[emprworm]

give me an example of a random mutation where information was increased?

[TMA_1]

evolutionists point out that the law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution because even though evolution can advance a species, it expends energy for the species to grow and adapt. Its an open system. That is correct too. I tend not to bring out that argument. It isnt a case for us. A good case is the fact that the moon only has an inch or so over the entire surface. Its interesting that over the "millions and millions" of years of bombardment by asteroids and the like, that only an inch is there. Scientists cant explain why.

[Acriku]

Explain why it has to have an extensive dust layer?

[emprworm]

2nd law of thermodynamics is a good argument because even in an open system, you could have an infinite stream of energy and it would mean nothing- a dead plant and a live plant are composed of exactly the same things. THey have the same makeup- and are identical in every way. THe more energy from the sun you dump on the dead plant, the faster it decays and breaks down. Just because we are in an "open system" does not mean that random events have a propensity to order!

[Acriku]

Would you like to explain snowflakes? Dust storms? Tornados? Order from nature, how interesting.

Why am I even talking about the moon dust argument? It's so bogus it's laughable! Ha! I laugh at it! Ok seriously now, the moon dust argument is solely based on "speculated" data accumulated from the tip of a mountain in Hawaii and another mountain I forgot where, and the explorer speculated how many dust should fall each year on the moon by the data collected on the earth. And that was in the 60s. Now, we have actual data from space, not earth, and calculated 2.3tons/day, where the "speculated" data on earth, not space, conscerned two different rates from two different mountains, 4144tons/day and 872,798tons/day. Talk about a huge difference ;)

[TMA_1]

it was expected to have a thick layer because of bombardment by astroids. When probes landed though they found it didnt. They cant explain why because the amount of times it has been hit by celestial bodies, it would have grown to have much dust all over the surface.

[Acriku]

Is there any data to support that claim TMA? Because your argument has been obsolete for about 25 years, which makes it amazing that people use it to today.