|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2004 : 15:29:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't know who/what the designer was as I have no scientific evidence that points toward the identification of one.
But, by your own logic, your theory predicts a supernatural designer. IF your argument/evidence about CSI were correct anyway.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 15:37:05 [Permalink]
|
******But, by your own logic, your theory predicts a supernatural designer. IF your argument/evidence about CSI were correct anyway.******
Why? |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 15:39:39 [Permalink]
|
********But again, perhaps Jerry can present a better case...*********
Other than ID being crap, do you have anything of intelligence to say or questions to ask? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 15:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist wrote:
This should probably start out something like "ID predicts that . . ." and should at some point be followed with something like "this is confirmed by . . ."
Scientific theories do require this thinking, but on its own, this is not enough. Central to science is the idea of falsifiability. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. Why? If it is not falsifiable, it can not be tested. If it can't be tested, there is no way of knowing if it is right (for now) or wrong. If there's no way of knowing if the theory is right or wrong, accepting it is just down to faith.
JerryB has several times stated that "ID predicts that matter/energy will tend to disorder. SO does SLOT." How is this falsifiable?
On a similar note: Yes, SLOT does say that the entropy of a system tends to disorder. But if that system gets an input of energy, the entropy of the systems can decrease. Take the Haber process for producing ammonia for example. 1 mole of N + 3 moles of H -> 1 mole of NH3 (ie lots of moles are going to fewer moles, which is a decrease in entropy). This of course requires a large energy input. Planet earth also acquires a large energy input (most of us will have seen it). So if any processes on earth show a decrease in entropy, this would hardly be surprising, as long as they receive this energy input. Do any biological processes on earth use this energy? Yes, the umbrella name for these are phototrophs (they include plants, algae and cyanobacteria). They use the energy to reduce 6 CO2 + 12 H20 to yield C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O (which is again a reduction in entropy). The energy gained in this process allows these organisms to grow, mutate and thus evolve. So, JerryB, why do you keep insisting that ToE violates SLOT? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 15:46:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Cuneiformist
There is no overall theory of ID just as there isn't with most sciences. For example you would stammer a bit if I demanded you give me the theory of anesthesiology or the theory of chemistry.
Also, it's largely non-scientists that repeatedly demand predictions from the field of ID as scientists understand this prediction deal is largely misunderstood. All sciences do not necessarily make predictions. Darwinism doesn't, for example.
Hi, Jerry. Not knowing much about this, I think your analogy is a poor one. ID, as I understand it, is an attempt to explain the diversity of life on this planet. It is in contrast to evolution, which also explains the diversity of life on this planet. Both are a subset of biology, no? But perhaps I'm wrong.
In any case, I also think you're wrong that Darwinism doesn't make predicitons. Sure it does! If one were to find fossil records where humans are preserved right along side, say, dinosaurs, that would go against Darwinism (thus, Darwinism and evolution are falsifiable-- a main feature of science). Similarly, Darwinism predicted that humans and apes (chimps in particular) are closely related and have a reletively recent common ancestor. This prediciton was made long before the discovery of DNA. However, the comparison of DNA between humans and chimps in fact shows quite clearly how closely we're related. (See some of the posts by Peptide in regards to his debate with some of the kids at Skeptic Times for more.) If human DNA were closer to, say, seahorses than, say, chimps, this would be a big blow to Darwinism. But this isn't the case.
Again, I don't know much about the subject, but I'm pretty sure that Darwinism/evolution does make predicitons.
quote:
But with this said, intelligent design does make several predictions:
1) With sexual reproduction over time, genomes will tend to become more disordered.
2) The building blocks of life, DNA and RNA will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent.
3) Complex homochiral proteins will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent.
4) Complex specified information will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent.
5) Irreducibly complex systems will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent.
6) Redundancy in organisms will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent.
7) Complex symbiotic systems will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent.
8) As genotypes become more disordered over time, phenotypes will as well.
Hmmm. I don't know, but it doesn't seem like these are predictions. They're more like a long, incomplete definition of what ID is. I mean, you can't say "ID predicts that redundancy in organisms will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent, and since redundancy in organisms is obviously designed by an intelligent agent, ID is right." That, I think, is a tautology. (Did I even spell that right?)
I mean, you'd want to back this up with, say, some proof that a designer made redundancy in organisms, no? It all seems really fuzzy. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/31/2004 10:28:26 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 15:47:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, JerryB, why do you keep insisting that ToE violates SLOT?
Apparently he thinks that earth is a closed or isolated system. Same for living organisms. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 16:00:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
********But again, perhaps Jerry can present a better case...*********
Other than ID being crap, do you have anything of intelligence to say or questions to ask?
Wow! Perhaps I don't. Perhaps I'm a raving idiot. Still, it doesn't change the fact that you can't seem to answer my question. Of course, since I am apparently completely lacking in intelligence, perhaps my questions aren't worth answering!
Here's another dumb question: as per the Discovery Institute, do you agree with their "plans for destroying science as it is currently done and replacing it with "theistic science"?
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 16:32:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Kil wrote:
quote:
Maybe the designer is an idiot. That would explain a few things, eh? Also, apparently there is no need for quality control for those powerful enough to create all the life we see on Earth. Our designer might be the halfwit son of an omnipotent cockroach, playing with his jr. science lab set in the basement of God Manor… If ID sticks, and there is no reason to think it will since it has already been debunked, I think we will have to conclude that the designer is, at the very least, incompetent…
Or malevolent. After all, it gave us cancer, multiple sclerosis, spina bifida, ALS, and muscular distrophy, just to name a few. You'd think that an entity with the power to "poof" things into existence, fully formed and ready to go, would have thought it through a little better and designed us so as to not fall victim to such out of whack biology. Unless the infliction of pain, suffering, and early death was part of the design. Take your pick, stupid or just plain mean. Then there's AIDS, ebola, bubonic plague and the like, which must have been designed, right?. Again, either by a not so smart or not so nice entity. And of course the design of the human being allowed such characters as John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Uncle Joe Stalin, and everybody's favorite example of design gone bad, A. Hitler to "poof" onto the planet. Either it didn't see that coming, or designed it into the system.
Or maybe he/she/it was utterly bored.
Maybe the designer is a roleplayer of sorts that enjoys torturing his little creations with the craziest monsters ever. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 16:49:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This should probably start out something like "ID predicts that . . ." and should at some point be followed with something like "this is confirmed by . . ."
I don't believe this is how it works in science, is it? Try this one:
"In the absence of force, an object at rest will stay at rest, and a body moving at a constant velocity in a straight line continues so indefinitely."
That's the way predictions are written.
quote:
Scientific theories do require this thinking, but on its own, this is not enough. Central to science is the idea of falsifiability. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. Why? If it is not falsifiable, it can not be tested. If it can't be tested, there is no way of knowing if it is right (for now) or wrong. If there's no way of knowing if the theory is right or wrong, accepting it is just down to faith.
I would agree. Thank goodness that all the tenets of ID are falsifiable under the Popperian thought inherent in the scientific method. Having never talked to you before then I would presume you are not a Darwinist since nothing in that field, common descent, common ancestors, speciations happening millions of years ago, etc. can be falsified?
quote:
JerryB has several times stated that "ID predicts that matter/energy will tend to disorder. SO does SLOT." How is this falsifiable?
Experiment 1) Set an old dilapidated car outside and see if it assumes a new show-room condition or continues to disorder as it has been since it was new.
Experiment 2) Don't paint your house for 20 years and see if its appearance continues to degrade, or if the old paint orders back into the appearance of a new paint job.
Experiment 3) Open a bottle of perfume until the odor is diffused throughout the room. Now, open a sterile bottle and see if the perfume will concentrate itself back into a bottle.
Experiment 4) Spill a glass of water and see if it becomes more organized by further concentrating itself or if it disorders via diffusion.
quote:
On a similar note: Yes, SLOT does say that the entropy of a system tends to disorder. But if that system gets an input of energy, the entropy of the systems can decrease. Take the Haber process for producing ammonia for example. 1 mole of N + 3 moles of H -> 1 mole of NH3 (ie lots of moles are going to fewer moles, which is a decrease in entropy). This of course requires a large energy input. Planet earth also acquires a large energy input (most of us will have seen it). So if any processes on earth show a decrease in entropy, this would hardly be surprising, as long as they receive this energy input. Do any biological processes on earth use this energy? Yes, the umbrella name for these are phototrophs (they include plants, algae and cyanobacteria). They use the energy to reduce 6 CO2 + 12 H20 to yield C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O (which is again a reduction in entropy). The energy gained in this process allows these organisms to grow, mutate and thus evolve. So, JerryB, why do you keep insisting that ToE violates SLOT?
SLOT can be overcome by an infusion of energy, but not just any infusion of energy. For example when the sun shines on a pond, energy is added to the system, the pond melts and the system actually disorders.
While the sun is a source of energy for phototrophs via photosynthesis, SLOT will always catch them as these organisms will still age and die. And the energy provided when mammals eat those plants provides free energy in the form of ATP to the cell, but that process actually increases entropy en vivo as the reaction you cite above often goes haywire and begins throwing out free radicals that damage mitochondrial DNA. This is why people eat antioxidants such as vitamin A, E and selenium by the basketful in this country. In fact, we have discovered that the key to a longer life is a near-starvation diet. Eat less, live longer.
Finally, if you believe the sun could provide the energy necessary to overcome the decay of SLOT in mammals, get naked, go stand out in the sun for a month and report back to tell us how much younger you got (If you're still alive). 
Cuneiformist
quote:
Hi, Jerry. Not knowing much about this, I think your analogy is a poor one. ID, as I understand it, is an attempt to explain the diversity of life on this planet. It is in contrast to evolution, which also explains the diversity of life on this planet. Both are a subset of biology, no? But perhaps I'm wrong.
ID doesn't have much to do with the diversity of life unless one considers that a designer made organisms diverse and evolution took it from there. ID is better directed in understanding the origins of life.
And you are correct that both fields are subsets of biology. ID just studies biology with both teleology and methodological naturalism as underpinning philosophies. IOW, we do not rule out that biological origins were goal-driven.
ID is firmly rooted in science, but it is not itself a theory or a hypothesis. Of course, we study science and some of us are scientists. But ID in itself is an epistemology--a body of thought that studies the nature of knowledge, its conjectures, foundations and its scope and validity. Teleology, like methodological naturalism is a scaffold for theories and hypotheses and it examines them utilizing diverse paradigms, yet, scientifically so.
quote:
In any case, I also think you're wrong that Darwinism doesn't make predicitons. Sure it does!
Well, what are they? I listed a few from my side of the spectrum.
quote:
If one were to find fossil records where humans are preserved right along side, say, dinosaurs, that would go against Darwinism (thus, Darwinism and evolution are falsifiable-- a main feature of science). Similarly, Darwinism predicted that humans and apes (chimps in particular) are closely related and have a reletively recent common ancestor.
So you guys actually predicted something would happen 5 million years ago? Dare I ask your age? 
quote:
This prediciton was made long before the discovery of DNA. However, the comparison of DNA between humans and chimps in fact shows quite clearly how closely we're related. (See some of the posts by Peptide in regards to his debate with some of the kids at [url="www.skeptictimes.com]Skeptic Times[/url] for more.) If human DNA were closer to, say, seahor |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 17:01:13 [Permalink]
|
I wish you would change your name to something I can spell.
Cuneiformist
quote:
Wow! Perhaps I don't. Perhaps I'm a raving idiot.
Certainly a distinct possibility that I haven't ruled out as of yet. I haven't had enough discussion with you to know as of yet.
quote:
Still, it doesn't change the fact that you can't seem to answer my question. Of course, since I am apparently completely lacking in intelligence, perhaps my questions aren't worth answering!
And the question I did not answer would be like.....um.....what?
quote:
Here's another dumb question: as per the Discovery Institute, do you agree with their "plans for destroying science as it is currently done and replacing it with "theistic science"?
I have nothing to do with that group as they seem more religionists than scientists to me. However, I have never heard before that they are attempting to destroy science and replace it with something called theistic science. You probably just made that up, did you not? If not some cites, quotes, references, please?
Siberia
quote:
Or maybe he/she/it was utterly bored.
Maybe the designer is a roleplayer of sorts that enjoys torturing his little creations with the craziest monsters ever.
All of those are credible possibilities. However, you left out one other glaring prospect. Could the designer itself have been a crazy monster? Then it would all make sense. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 18:13:50 [Permalink]
|
My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific theories do require this thinking, but on its own, this is not enough. Central to science is the idea of falsifiability. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. Why? If it is not falsifiable, it can not be tested. If it can't be tested, there is no way of knowing if it is right (for now) or wrong. If there's no way of knowing if the theory is right or wrong, accepting it is just down to faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB quote:
"I would agree. Thank goodness that all the tenets of ID are falsifiable under the Popperian thought inherent in the scientific method. Having never talked to you before then I would presume you are not a Darwinist since nothing in that field, common descent, common ancestors, speciations happening millions of years ago, etc. can be falsified?"
-------------------------------------------------
ToE can be falsified. For example, if cats and dogs were more divergent in their genetic composition than cats and frogs are then ToE would be false. The prediction is then for example that releatedness of organisms (as decided before the advent of molecular genetics) should be verified by genetic comparisons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB has several times stated that "ID predicts that matter/energy will tend to disorder. SO does SLOT." How is this falsifiable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB quote:
"Experiment 1) Set an old dilapidated car outside and see if it assumes a new show-room condition or continues to disorder as it has been since it was new.
Experiment 2) Don't paint your house for 20 years and see if its appearance continues to degrade, or if the old paint orders back into the appearance of a new paint job.
Experiment 3) Open a bottle of perfume until the odor is diffused throughout the room. Now, open a sterile bottle and see if the perfume will concentrate itself back into a bottle.
Experiment 4) Spill a glass of water and see if it becomes more organized by further concentrating itself or if it disorders via diffusion."
SLOT does predict this. But all you are saying in your examples is that SLOT is falsifiable.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
My quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a similar note: Yes, SLOT does say that the entropy of a system tends to disorder. But if that system gets an input of energy, the entropy of the systems can decrease. Take the Haber process for producing ammonia for example. 1 mole of N + 3 moles of H -> 1 mole of NH3 (ie lots of moles are going to fewer moles, which is a decrease in entropy). This of course requires a large energy input. Planet earth also acquires a large energy input (most of us will have seen it). So if any processes on earth show a decrease in entropy, this would hardly be surprising, as long as they receive this energy input. Do any biological processes on earth use this energy? Yes, the umbrella name for these are phototrophs (they include plants, algae and cyanobacteria). They use the energy to reduce 6 CO2 + 12 H20 to yield C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O (which is again a reduction in entropy). The energy gained in this process allows these organisms to grow, mutate and thus evolve. So, JerryB, why do you keep insisting that ToE violates SLOT?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB Quote:
"SLOT can be overcome by an infusion of energy, but not just any infusion of energy. For example when the sun shines on a pond, energy is added to the system, the pond melts and the system actually disorders."
A pond might get disordered (is that a word?), but a pond can hardly be called living.
---------------------------------------
JerryB Quote:
"While the sun is a source of energy for phototrophs via photosynthesis, SLOT will always catch them as these organisms will still age and die. "
Things die, but as in my example above, they acquire energy (to reduce CO2, thus decreasing entropy). This allows them to grow and reproduce. Their descenants will do the same thing (they locally decrease entropy). During this process, mutations are acquired. This allows populations of these organisms to evolve (above I made it sound as if the actual organism evolved which obviously wrong). Whether or not it's SLOT that makes these organisms die is irrelevant. Their power to locally decrease entropy lives on in their descendants. In the absense of selection, this process might be a short-lived one (SLOT might indeed in the end cause the extinction of these organimsms). Selection is a potent force in evolution though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JerryB Quote:
"And the energy provided when mammals eat those plants provides free energy in the form of ATP to the cell, but that process actually increases entropy en vivo as the reaction you cite above often goes haywire and begins throwing out free radicals that damage mitochondrial DNA."
The energy is not in the form of ATP. Chemotrophic organisms acquire their energy by "eating" chemically reduced compounds (eg proteins, fats and carbohydrates). These compounds can in turn be used to make ATP. These catbolic processes would increase entropy, but the anabolic processes of organisms (eg synthesising proteins or DNA) decreases it.
Free radicals are a natural product/side effect of metabolism. Things don't have to go haywire for them to appear. For example, roughly 5% of the electrons liberated in the electron transport chain of mitochondria end up creating free radicals (mostly in the form of superoxide). The other 95% could then be used for anabolic purposes.
JerryB quote:
"This is why people eat antioxidants such as vitamin A, E and selenium by the basketful in this country.
Selenium is not an antioxidant. It just forms part of the reactive center of the enzyme glutathione peroxidase, which is the actual antioxidant. By the way, eating roughly ten times the amount of the daily recommended intake of selenium will make you very sick - because of free radical damage. Like all transition metals, selenium can cause free radical damage.
JerryB quote:
"In fact, we have discovered that the key to a longer life is a near-starvation diet. Eat less, live longer."
From an evolutionary perspective, whether you as a human live 80 or 120 years does not really matter. As long as you've had your offspring, raised them and then maybe help with the upbringing of the grandkids, you've made your contribution to the genepool for future generations. If you live more than 100 years (usually a lot less) you are actually an obstacle to the success of your offspring as they now must care for you. Ie living for too long makes you less fit evolutionary speaking.
JerryB quote:
"Finally, if you believe the sun could provide the energy necessary to overcome the decay of SLOT in mammals, get naked, go stand out in the sun for a month and report back to tell us how much younger you got (If you |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 19:21:49 [Permalink]
|
JerryB quote:
"Finally, if you believe the sun could provide the energy necessary to overcome the decay of SLOT in mammals, get naked, go stand out in the sun for a month and report back to tell us how much younger you got (If you're still alive). "
Missed this in my last reply.
The statement that I should get younger when I stand in the sun is obviously a strawman. If I stand in the sun for 1 minute, then I am obviously 1 minute older by the end of it. By the way, I just took my son out for a walk in the garden on this sunny day - and I am still alive. Mammals can't use the energy from the Sun as a source of food. Plants can, but I don't think anyone has ever argued that this makes them younger everyday. Is this what you're implying?
We can actually use the energy of the sun to a limited extent (apart from as a heat and light source). In the skin, cholestreol exposed to UV is turned into vitamin D. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 19:27:12 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I forgot:
So, JerryB, why do you keep insisting that ToE violates SLOT? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 19:38:49 [Permalink]
|
Ok Jerry, lemmee see if I've got this straight, and do correct me if I'm wrong: you claim a 'designer,' but you cannot discribe it and indeed, are not sure of exactly what it might be. Indeed, you seem to be willing to consider the speculation that this designer just might be an incompetant ass who ought to be impeached. Further, you accuse (correctly) the Discovery Institute of having a religious agenda with priority above any scientific one. Right?
This brings up the question of, damn, how many versions of ID are there? I'm only familiar with the Dembski hornswoggle. Is there a large complement of believers in, let us say, alternent ideas, or are you an organization of one? Seriously, I don't get out much these days. I'm asking.
Anyhow, the ToE has gathered supporting evidence since even before Darwin. Since then, it has weathered constant assault from Young and Old Earthers of various stripe, and even within it's own community. And as more evidence comes in, it becomes stronger. It will never be 'proven,' of course, but any unbiased court would find in favor of it because all of the evidence is in favor of it. Thus far, there has been exactly nothing to debunk it.
Son-of-a-bitch, but wouldn't I love to find that Devonian Bunny! Only a few skull fragments and a couple of teeth from it would be enough, or even just a tooth or two from the Cambrian Croc -- is that too much to ask?
Dig it, that discovery, or one like it, would turn all of Darwin's observations and writings, and a large part of modern, biological research, meaningless. It would consign the ToE to the trash bin.
I would become world famous and wealthy boring people to distraction on the lecture circute. I could go to Sweden and collect my Nobel at my leasure. Hell, if I insisted, they might even deliver it to my door.
And there you have it. Falsifying the ToE is among the greatest prizes science has to offer. Do it and your fame and fortune is made. But thus far, even with all of the howling of it's detractors, nobody has even come close.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2004 : 19:49:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ToE can be falsified. For example, if cats and dogs were more divergent in their genetic composition than cats and frogs are then ToE would be false. The prediction is then for example that releatedness of organisms (as decided before the advent of molecular genetics) should be verified by genetic comparisons.
If frogs were closer to cats than dogs, then frogs would be mammals and dogs something else. Silly analogy. And one cannot predict something that already is. That's not a prediction that's a description. Does Darwinism actually have any predictions that can be falsified? You would be well advised to come up with some because if you cannot after making the assertions you have made in this thread then you have just falsified Darwinism right here in front our fellow skeptics. Probably why I was skeptical of Darwinism from the very beginning, 'eh?
quote:
SLOT does predict this. But all you are saying in your examples is that SLOT is falsifiable.
That's exactly what you asked me to do. Reread your question.
quote:
A pond might get disordered (is that a word?), but a pond can hardly be called living.
When did I say that the matter changing states of order had to be living? In fact, there is little difference as they both are comprised of molecules consisting of atoms. Matter is matter and all matter matters in the eyes of SLOT.
quote:
Things die, but as in my example above, they acquire energy (to reduce CO2, thus decreasing entropy).
But you have not shown how the intake of energy by a heterotroph reduces the entropy of that heterotroph. Energy is not negentropy and when a heterotroph consumes energy, nothing in the real world is 100% efficient and so a certain amount of that energy will always become energy unavailable for work--entropy. Thus entropy must increase as I have asserted to you.
quote:
This allows them to grow and reproduce. Their descenants will do the same thing (they locally decrease entropy).
You seem a little muddy on this, maybe I can help you bring it further into focus. A biology major, I gather?
First, what entropy are you referring to here? If you're speaking of thermodynamic entropy which always deals with heat exchanges, then homo sapiens increase local entropy because they are always dumping heat into the environment. In the formula S = Q / T where S is entropy, Q is heat energy and T is absolute temperature (which is always Kelvin, of course, since that's what absolute temperature is). Please observe how this works mathematically.
Note that this is an irreversible process, thus the total increase of entropy in the universe will increase. I will convert body temperature and air temperature into Kelvin. Let's presume that a human dumps 2500 Joules of heat energy into the environment. The change in entropy of the environment will be (Note to readers, remember that the Greek delta before a term always denotes that term is changing in quantity):
deltaS = deltaQ / T
deltaS = 2500 J / 310 K
deltaS = 8.06 J/K
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
