INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#561 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » July 17th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Pahu wrote:
[center]Science vs. Macroevolution[/center][/color]



Let’s address this issue by first defining our terms. Although many definitions have appeared, science can be described as what we really know to be true mainly through observation. The late G. G. Simpson of Harvard stated in Science magazine that “it is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science."
Here is the source of the Simpson quotation:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/algernon/1964-simpson.pdf

The relevant sentence is :
It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything -or at the very least they are not science.
The word " acceptable" has been omitted from the version you quote. Whether it matters or not to the meaning, it tells us that the writer did not check his sources. The same omission occurs many times in creationist literature, so it is a fair inference that the writer simply repeated it uncritically. And he may have had no acquaintance at all with the context. Simpson was warning against speculation without evidence and against wishful thinking.

Now, let's have a look at this:
One finds many in the secular community constantly equating the word science with macroevolution, or large change.
Really? Does the writer understand the word " equate"?

One of the architects of neo-Darwinism agrees: “It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957)
Nothing to complain about there, but look at the next bit:
One can clearly see that according to secular sources, macroevolution and true science have nothing to do with each other.
Can you see the bait-and-switch there?
If you can't, here it is: Simpson warns against what cannot be checked by observation. Dobzhansky points out that certain things cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.

Your writer could have spared us the trouble of reading through his daft argument if he had just chirped: Were you there? Were you there?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#562 Post by Pahu » July 19th, 2017, 3:02 pm

Fossil Gaps 9

At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.” Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria,” Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#563 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » July 20th, 2017, 10:00 pm

Pahu wrote:
Fossil Gaps 9

At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.” Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria,” Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]



Here we go again. The link that you did not provide:

http://www.molevol.de/molevol2/publications/115.pdf

The article concludes:
. So our understanding of the original mitochondrial host is not improved by these new findings, but our understanding of mitochondria certainly is. In its role as a living fossil from the time of prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition, Giardia is now retired. But it assumes a new place in the textbooks as an exemplary eukaryote with tiny mitochondria that have a tenacious grip on an essential — and anaerobic — biochemical pathway.


Scientific understanding in one area remains hazy, but in another area things are clearer.

Now, if Brown meant to say that science doesn't know everything, he could have saved himself the trouble of digging out a quotation.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#564 Post by Pahu » July 26th, 2017, 3:31 pm

Fossil Gaps 10

Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] —although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record.” Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...”   Ibid.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#565 Post by animist » July 28th, 2017, 10:57 am

well, at least this thread makes me improve my biology! The quotation at the bottom is from a text and seems to undermine Brown's claim. The key sentence is: "Nonvascular plants are not "older" than nonflowering seed plants".
Pahu wrote:
If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/Biol ... lar+Plants
"Before we begin to discuss each of the plant lineages, it is important to understand the phylogenetic relationships among them. According to this figure, are nonvascular plants "older" than nonflowering seed plants? The correct way to interpret a phylogenetic tree is to read which groups are more closely related to one another, and which groups are more primitive or more highly diverged. Nonvascular plants are not "older" than nonflowering seed plants, but they possess a greater number of primitive character states than do nonflowering seed plants. Also, the origin of the nonflowering seed plant lineage occurred later in time than the origin of nonvascular plants, but this does not mean that currently living nonvascular plants are any older than currently living nonflowering seed plants. Flowering seed plants are the most derived lineage of plants"

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#566 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » July 29th, 2017, 1:07 am

animist wrote:well, at least this thread makes me improve my biology! The quotation at the bottom is from a text and seems to undermine Brown's claim. The key sentence is: "Nonvascular plants are not "older" than nonflowering seed plants".
Pahu wrote:
If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/Biol ... lar+Plants
"Before we begin to discuss each of the plant lineages, it is important to understand the phylogenetic relationships among them. According to this figure, are nonvascular plants "older" than nonflowering seed plants? The correct way to interpret a phylogenetic tree is to read which groups are more closely related to one another, and which groups are more primitive or more highly diverged. Nonvascular plants are not "older" than nonflowering seed plants, but they possess a greater number of primitive character states than do nonflowering seed plants. Also, the origin of the nonflowering seed plant lineage occurred later in time than the origin of nonvascular plants, but this does not mean that currently living nonvascular plants are any older than currently living nonflowering seed plants. Flowering seed plants are the most derived lineage of plants"
I'm with you on this, animist, although I didn't know of your link. What I found was this:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and- ... ion-plants
Despite this, most scientists believe that bryophytes evolved before vascular plants, and that the earliest bryophytes have not been found because they fossilize poorly. This belief is supported by a variety of evidence, including morphological traits, ultrastructural features visible under the electron microscope, and molecular information obtained from gene sequencing.

As Feynman observed, Evidence decides. How else is science to progress? The bizarre nature of the YEC view is illustrated by the fact that any disagreement among scientists is taken to be evidence for their quaint myths.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#567 Post by animist » July 29th, 2017, 11:43 am

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:I'm with you on this, animist, although I didn't know of your link. What I found was this:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and- ... ion-plants
Despite this, most scientists believe that bryophytes evolved before vascular plants, and that the earliest bryophytes have not been found because they fossilize poorly. This belief is supported by a variety of evidence, including morphological traits, ultrastructural features visible under the electron microscope, and molecular information obtained from gene sequencing.

As Feynman observed, Evidence decides. How else is science to progress? The bizarre nature of the YEC view is illustrated by the fact that any disagreement among scientists is taken to be evidence for their quaint myths.
well yes, I was hoping to see something like this, ie that the earliest non-vascular plants would be unlikely to leave fossils because of their nature. Pahu, you must know (since I'm sure you've been told before) that life-forms have evolved from simpler and smaller to bigger and more complex (as you can tell from my version of evolution, I am not a biologist! :laughter: But I think that is OTH true). So it's not really much of an argument for creationists to use the relative infrequency of organisms in the earlier stages of evolution as an argument against the theory.

Look, and I've probably said this too before, I think you make two philosophical mistakes. First, as can be seen in the title of your thread, even if your scientific arguments were correct, they would not show that "science disproves evolution" but only show that the theory fails to be a totally watertight explanation for the evidence of fossils etc. Secondly, and following on, I think you confuse evidence with proof. The theory of evolution can be confirmed by experiments which show small changes in species (and, as I know I and Lord M have said, some of these changes result in new species), but the main evidence comes from a sort of Sherlock Holmes approach to what has happened in the past, mainly inference from the fossil record. By its nature, this inference can always be queried as a correct interpretation of the evidence, and unlike a Sherlock Holmes mystery, there is no living villain to be confronted with the evidence of his crime and to then break down with an admission of guilt!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#568 Post by Pahu » July 29th, 2017, 4:04 pm

animist wrote:
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:I'm with you on this, animist, although I didn't know of your link. What I found was this:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and- ... ion-plants
Despite this, most scientists believe that bryophytes evolved before vascular plants, and that the earliest bryophytes have not been found because they fossilize poorly. This belief is supported by a variety of evidence, including morphological traits, ultrastructural features visible under the electron microscope, and molecular information obtained from gene sequencing.

As Feynman observed, Evidence decides. How else is science to progress? The bizarre nature of the YEC view is illustrated by the fact that any disagreement among scientists is taken to be evidence for their quaint myths.
well yes, I was hoping to see something like this, ie that the earliest non-vascular plants would be unlikely to leave fossils because of their nature. Pahu, you must know (since I'm sure you've been told before) that life-forms have evolved from simpler and smaller to bigger and more complex (as you can tell from my version of evolution, I am not a biologist! :laughter: But I think that is OTH true). So it's not really much of an argument for creationists to use the relative infrequency of organisms in the earlier stages of evolution as an argument against the theory.
The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:
Creation - Evolution


There is the theory that all living things have arisen through a naturalistic, mechanistic evolutionary process from a single source, which itself arose by a similar process from a dead, inorganic world. This general evolutionary hypothesis is usually presented as an established scientific fact in science textbooks. All of the evidence that can be adduced in favor of this theory is thoroughly discussed in such texts, and it is often stated that all competent biologists accept the theory of evolution.

While it is true that most biologists accept evolution as a fact, there is a significant minority of competent biologists who do not accept this theory as the best interpretation of the known data. One of these who may be cited as an example is Dr. W. R. Thompson (see American Men of Science or Canadian Men of Science), whose credentials as a competent biologist need no defense. His objections to evolutionary theory may be found in his introduction to a 1956 edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species entitled A Critique of Evolution.1 In 1963 a group of scientists formed the Creation Research Society.2 This relatively new organization now includes about 400 members, all of whom hold a master’s degree or doctorate in some Field of science. None accept the theory of evolution.

There is actually a considerable body of sound, scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, some of which appears to be absolutely incompatible with the theory. The importance of the nature of this evidence is never emphasized in textbooks used in our public school systems and colleges. In fact, this evidence is rarely, if ever, even mentioned. As a result, biology students are exposed to all the evidence that can be adduced in favor of the theory, but are not made aware of its weaknesses, nor the evidence that actually contradicts the theory. We must recognize, therefore, that such an educational process amounts to indoctrination in a particular world view or philosophy based on the concept that the origin of the Universe, the origin and diversity of life, in fact all of reality, must be explainable solely on the basis of the laws of chemistry and physics. The possibility of a Creator or the existence of a Supernatural Being is excluded. We are convinced that the reason evolutionary theory is so widely accepted today is because our scientists and biology teachers are the products of an educational system dominated by this naturalistic, mechanistic, humanistic philosophy.

The theory of evolution violates two of the most fundamental laws of nature—the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law states that no matter what changes may take place, nuclear, chemical, or physical, the sum total of energy and matter (actually equivalent) remains constant. Nothing now is being either created nor destroyed, although transformations of many kinds may take place. The Second Law states that every change which takes place naturally and spontaneously tends to go from a state of order to one of disorder, from the complex to the simple, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. The total amount of randomness or disorder in the universe (entropy is a measure of this randomness) is constantly and inevitably increasing. Any increase in order and complexity that may occur, therefore, could only be local and temporary; but evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time. Amino acids do not spontaneously combine to form proteins, but proteins spontaneously break down to amino acids, and amino acids slowly break down to simpler chemical compounds. With careful control of reactants, energy input, and removal of product from the energy source (as is done in current "origin of life" experiments), man can synthesize amino acids from gases, and proteins from amino acids. But under any combination of realistic primordial earth conditions, these processes could never have taken place. This fact was adequately demonstrated by Hull who concluded that, "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."3 Hull was here referring to origin of life speculations.

Since the universe, like a clock, is running down, it is obvious that it hasn’t existed forever. But according to the First Law, the sum total of energy and matter is always a constant. How then can we, purely on a natural basis alone, explain the origin of matter and energy of which this universe is composed. The evolutionary continuum, from cosmos to man, is creative and progressive, while the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics declare that known natural processes are quantitatively conservative and qualitatively degenerative. In every case, without exception, when these Laws have been subjected to test they have been found valid. Exponents of evolutionary theory thus ignore the observable in order to accept the unobservable (the evolutionary origin of life and of the major kinds of living things).

The evolutionary process has supposedly taken place via random mutational changes. This basic concept of the modern evolutionary theory is under attack even by some evolutionists. Salisbury4 has recently questioned this concept and it has come under attack by several mathematicians. A symposium was held at the Wistar Institute in 1966 at which these mathematicians and evolutionary biologists presented opposing views.5 One of the mathematicians, Dr. Murray Eden, stated that, "It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery of new natural laws—physical, physicochemical and biological" (emphasis added).6 It is the contention of Salisbury and of these mathematicians that the increase in complexity and the progress that has supposedly been accomplished by evolution through random changes would require a length of time billions of times longer than three billion years.

Random mutations and natural selection supposedly have been responsible for evolution, allegedly a creative and progressive process. Natural selection, however, is not creative since it cannot create anything new. It is a conservative force eliminating the unfit. Random mutational changes in an ordered system is a disordering or randomizing process and is thus degenerative, not progressive. This realization is slowly spreading among evolutionists today.

Whether evolution actually did happen or not can only be indicated by an examination of the historical record, that is, the fossil record. What type of evidence would support the evolutionary concept? Thompson has stated, "Therefore, if we found in the geological strata a series of fossils showing a gradual transition from simple to complex forms, and could be sure that they correspond to a true time-sequence, then we should be inclined to feet that Darwinian evolution has occurred, even though its mechanism remains unknown."1 If invertebrate gave rise to vertebrate, fish to amphibia, amphibia to reptile, reptile to bird and mammals—each transformation requiring millions of years and involving innumerable transitional forms—then the fossil record should certainly produce a good representative number of these transitional types. Thompson goes on to say, "That is certainly what Darwin would have liked to report, but of course he was unable to do so. What the available data indicated was a remarkable absence of the many intermediate forms required by the theory; the absence of the primitive types that should have existed in the strata regarded as the most ancient; and the sudden appearance of the principle taxonomic groups." Later on he states, " ... and I may note that the position is not notably different today. The modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which however plausible are in the nature of things unverifiable."

In the Cambrian geological strata there occurs a sudden, great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. In the Cambrian rocks are found billions of fossils of animals so complex that the evolutionists estimate they would have required one and a half billion years to evolve. Trilobites, brachiopods, sponges, corals, jellyfish, in fact every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian. What is found in rocks supposedly older than the Cambrian, that is in the so-called pre-Cambrian rocks? Not a single indisputable fossil! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction, the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found.

Axelrod, a geologist and an evolutionist, has written:

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks and their absence in rocks of greater age. These Early Cambrian fossils included porifera, coelenterates, brachiopods, mollusca, echinoids, and arthropods. Their high degree of organization clearly indicates that a long period of evolution preceded their appearance in the record. However, when we turn to examine the pre-Cambrian rocks for the forerunners of these Early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found. Many thick (over 5000 feet) sections or sedimentary rock are now known to lie in unbroken succession below strata containing the earliest Cambrian fossils. These sediments apparently were suitable for the preservation of fossils because they are often identical with overlying rocks which are fossiliferous, yet no fossils are found in them" (emphasis added).7
George Gaylord Simpson, famous paleontologist and evolutionist, has termed the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils the "major mystery of the history of life."8 This great outburst of highly developed and complex living things is highly contradictory to evolutionary theory, but is exactly what would be predicted on the basis of special (divine) creation.

The fossil record ought to produce thousands of transitional forms. Instead we find that there is a regular and systematic absence of transitional forms between higher categories. The major invertebrate types found in the Cambrian are just as distinctly set apart when they first appear as they are today, the fossil record giving no indication that any of these major types have been derived from common ancestors.

The vertebrates supposedly evolved from an invertebrate. This is an assumption that cannot be documented from the fossil record. There is a vast gulf between the invertebrates and vertebrates not bridged by transitional forms. The first vertebrate, a fish of the class Agnatha, is a 100% vertebrate. Of its possible evolutionary origin, Ommanney has said, "How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill."9 One hundred million years and no transitional forms! Incredible!

Fish supposedly gave rise to amphibian over a period of millions of years during which time the fins of the hypothetical ancestral fish gradually changed into the feet and legs of the amphibian. Yet not a single fossil has ever been found showing a part-way fin and part-way foot! The living amphibians. include three types: the salamanders and newts, usually with sprawling legs and tails; the frogs and toads, among the most highly specialized of all land vertebrates, having no tails and very long hind legs; the Apodans, a worm-like creature with no trace of limbs. No transitional forms can be found between these diverse living amphibians, or between them and fossil amphibians.10

Birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptiles. Yet no one has ever found a single fossil showing a part-way wing and part-way forelimb, or a part-way feather. Archaeopteryx, "the oldest known bird," had teeth but so did other birds found in the fossil record that were unquestionably 100% birds. Archaeopteryx had claw-like appendages on the leading edges of its wings. These same appendages, however. are found in a living bird in South America, the Hoactzin, and he is 100% bird. Archaeopteryx had vertebrae extending out along the tail, but was no more a transitional form between reptile and bird than the bat is a link between bird and mammal. Archaeopteryx had fully developed wings and feathers. It flew. It was definitely a bird, as all paleontologists agree. Lecomte du Nouy, an evolutionist, has said, "in spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain "unknown."11 Marshall has stated, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."12

As a matter of fact, the ability to fly supposedly evolved four times independently: in the birds, the flying reptiles (pterosaurs) now extinct, the insects, and in mammals (the bat). In none of these cases are there fossil transitional forms showing the ability to fly as evolving. Dr. E. C. Olson, an evolutionary geologist, has said, "As far as flight is concerned there are some very big gaps in the records."13 Concerning insects Olson says, "There is almost nothing to give any information about the history of the origin of flight in insects." Referring to pterosaurs Olson states " ... there is absolutely no sign of intermediate stages." After referring to Archaeopteryx as reptile-like Olson says "It shows itself to be a bird." Finally, with reference to mammals Olson states, "The first evidence of flight in mammals is in fully developed bats of the Eocene epoch." We thus have a most remarkable situation. Four times a marvelous transformation has taken place: terrestrial animals have evolved the power of flight. Each such transformation required millions of years and involved thousands of transitional forms. Yet none of these transitional forms can be found in the fossil record! Could it be that these transitional forms are not found simply because they never existed? Such evidence can be much more easily correlated within a creationist framework than within an evolutionary framework.

The examples given above are not exceptions, but as stated earlier the fossil record displays a systematic absence of transitional types between higher categories. Even with reference to the famous horse "series," du Nouy reports, "But each one of these intermediaries seems to have appeared ‘suddenly,’ and it has not yet been possible, because of the lack of fossils, to reconstitute the passage between these intermediaries.... The continuity we surmise may never be established by facts."14

We believe that the sudden appearance in the fossil record of highly developed forms of life in vast numbers and the sudden appearance of each major taxonomic group without apparent transitional forms indicates that there was actually no passage at all from lower forms to higher forms, but that each major taxonomic group was specially created and thus corresponds to the "kinds" described in the Book of Genesis.

Professor G. A. Kerkut, an evolutionist, in his illuminating book Implications of Evolution has stated "… there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.15 The theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis" (emphasis added). We believe that special creation actually offers a far better explanation of the scientific evidence. To restrict the teaching concerning origins to a single theory, that of organic evolution, and to teach it as an established scientific fact, constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic religious philosophy. Such a procedure violates the Constitutional prohibition against the teaching of sectarian religious views just as clearly as if the teaching concerning origins were restricted to the Book of Genesis. In the spirit of fairness and of academic freedom we plead for a balanced presentation of all the evidence.

http://www.icr.org/article/52
Last edited by Alan H on July 29th, 2017, 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Ho hum...
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#569 Post by Pahu » August 2nd, 2017, 9:02 pm

Fossil Gaps 11

“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.”   Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

“... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.” E. J. H. Corner, “Evolution,” Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on August 2nd, 2017, 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Here we go again, Pahu.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#570 Post by animist » August 3rd, 2017, 4:56 pm

Pahu wrote: http://www.icr.org/article/52
"The theory of evolution violates two of the most fundamental laws of nature—the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics."
wrong:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#571 Post by Pahu » August 3rd, 2017, 7:43 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote: http://www.icr.org/article/52
"The theory of evolution violates two of the most fundamental laws of nature—the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics."
wrong:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about- ... termediate
Here is a quote from your link:

"The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

"However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered."


My response:

• An isolated system exchanges neither matter nor energy with its surroundings. The total entropy of an isolated system never decreases. The universe is an isolated system, so is running down. [See http://creation.com/if-god-created-the- ... reated-god] A closed system exchanges energy but not matter with its surroundings. In this case, the 2nd Law is stated such that the total entropy of the system and surroundings never decreases.
• An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:

“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things.

To make proteins, a cell uses the information coded in the DNA and a very complex decoding machine. In the lab, chemists must use sophisticated machinery to make the building blocks combine in the right way. Raw energy would result in wrong combinations and even destruction of the building blocks.

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise I suggest
concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that a cat walking on a keyboard could write a book.

http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-t ... to-critics
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#572 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » August 5th, 2017, 12:46 am

Pahu, the dispute here is not about the distinction between open and closed systems or closed and isolated systems. However important these distinctions may be, the dispute is about a particular assertion:
Any increase in order and complexity that may occur, therefore, could only be local and temporary; but evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.


Can you explain what it means? If so, can you explain what evidence supports it?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#573 Post by animist » August 5th, 2017, 10:54 am

here is the Rational Wiki article on this topic:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

I suppose the best rejoinder to creationist attempts to use the Second Law to bash evolution is this (or at least it's one that we can all understand!):

"In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.""

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#574 Post by Pahu » August 9th, 2017, 2:34 pm

Fossil Gaps 12

“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#575 Post by animist » August 10th, 2017, 2:57 pm

Pahu wrote:
Fossil Gaps 12

“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
how about answering my last post, Pahu? And FTM Lord M's?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#576 Post by Pahu » August 10th, 2017, 8:32 pm

animist wrote:here is the Rational Wiki article on this topic:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

I suppose the best rejoinder to creationist attempts to use the Second Law to bash evolution is this (or at least it's one that we can all understand!):

"In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.""
The second law is active. Notice he does degenerate, die and decompose. Everything eventually goes from a higher state to a lower state, not the other way around as evolution claims.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#577 Post by Pahu » August 10th, 2017, 8:37 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Pahu, the dispute here is not about the distinction between open and closed systems or closed and isolated systems. However important these distinctions may be, the dispute is about a particular assertion:
Any increase in order and complexity that may occur, therefore, could only be local and temporary; but evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.


Can you explain what it means? If so, can you explain what evidence supports it?
The evidence is found in observing what really happens. Everything is running down if left to itself, in conformity to the second law. Nothing is seen to be going up.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#578 Post by Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Pahu wrote:The evidence is found in observing what really happens. Everything is running down if left to itself, in conformity to the second law. Nothing is seen to be going up.
I observe that this thread has just increased its information content.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#579 Post by animist » August 11th, 2017, 10:38 am

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:here is the Rational Wiki article on this topic:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

I suppose the best rejoinder to creationist attempts to use the Second Law to bash evolution is this (or at least it's one that we can all understand!):

"In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.""
The second law is active. Notice he does degenerate, die and decompose. Everything eventually goes from a higher state to a lower state, not the other way around as evolution claims.
you conveniently ignore the point I made, which is roughly that there is necessarily growth in order for there to be decay! Plus which, what if science does achieve indefinitely long lifespans for the human race? And lastly, evolution is not about higher and lower states, simply about adaptation via natural selection. None of this has much to do with the Second Law, which, whether applied to a heat engine or to the universe as a whole, is about energy

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#580 Post by Pahu » August 11th, 2017, 2:51 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:here is the Rational Wiki article on this topic:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

I suppose the best rejoinder to creationist attempts to use the Second Law to bash evolution is this (or at least it's one that we can all understand!):

"In reference to evolution, PZ Myers put it: "The second law of thermodynamics argument is one of the hoariest, silliest claims in the creationist collection. It's self-refuting. Point to the creationist: ask whether he was a baby once. Has he grown? Has he become larger and more complex? Isn't he standing there in violation of the second law himself? Demand that he immediately regress to a slimy puddle of mingled menses and semen.""
The second law is active. Notice he does degenerate, die and decompose. Everything eventually goes from a higher state to a lower state, not the other way around as evolution claims.
you conveniently ignore the point I made, which is roughly that there is necessarily growth in order for there to be decay! Plus which, what if science does achieve indefinitely long lifespans for the human race? And lastly, evolution is not about higher and lower states, simply about adaptation via natural selection. None of this has much to do with the Second Law, which, whether applied to a heat engine or to the universe as a whole, is about energy
Thermodynamics



The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end. This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only “problem” is that creationists “misunderstand” real thermodynamics.

The First Law

Since the controversy between evolutionists and thermodynamics involves mainly the second law, we will only briefly look at the first law, sometimes referred to as the law of conservation, which tells us essentially that:

Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists.

Regarding this first law, Isaac Asimov offers this noteworthy comment:

“This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. No one knows why energy is conserved... All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful measurement scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation, either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us, or in the heavens above or in the atoms within.”
[Smithsonian Institution Journal, 1970, p.6]

The Second Law

On the other hand, the second law tells us what can and cannot take place in terms of the relationships and transformations between matter, energy, and work, and their respective properties, as well as those of information and complexity, saying:

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

(Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.)

To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means, consider the following, also from Isaac Asimov:

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]

This is the essence of Classical Thermodynamics. Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy)—and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second law’s demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.

Evolutionism takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infinite—yet random—additional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism. This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.

Not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, it’s the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.

To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenon—or an empirical fact gathered in any scientific discipline—might be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories). But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing. Popper insisted that a theory’s true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictions—success in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place. Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact “predictions” for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to them—frequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.

In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a “fact” that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes. The presupposition of evolution as “fact” leaves no alternative but that it must be possible in spite of the second law. But no one can explain satisfactorily how a presumed process of nature (evolution) has moved steadily towards higher arrangements of ordered complexity, when the foremost law of nature demands that (in Asimov’s words) “all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.”

Open vs. Closed Systems

The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”

The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.

The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.

But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?

The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. A “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity

2. A mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.

Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).

While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.

In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.

https://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.php
Last edited by Alan H on August 11th, 2017, 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Ho hum...
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 634
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#581 Post by Lord Muck oGentry » August 12th, 2017, 1:07 am

Pahu wrote:
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Pahu, the dispute here is not about the distinction between open and closed systems or closed and isolated systems. However important these distinctions may be, the dispute is about a particular assertion:
Any increase in order and complexity that may occur, therefore, could only be local and temporary; but evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.


Can you explain what it means? If so, can you explain what evidence supports it?
The evidence is found in observing what really happens. Everything is running down if left to itself, in conformity to the second law. Nothing is seen to be going up.
Well, you haven't dealt with the connection between order and complexity and 2LT. We may return to that later.


But let us leave that aside for the moment and concentrate on the assertion that evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.

What do you understand by order? And what has it to do with thermodynamics?

How does ( the theory of) evolution require a general increase in order? Is ToE incompatible with local and temporary increase in order ( whatever that may be) ?

Is ToE incompatible with the notion that life will eventually die out when the geological time of our planet is over?

Give reasons for your answers.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

Post Reply