|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2009 : 02:17:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Let's dispense with the silly Creationist version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and get it over with. That'll likely save us all a lot of ennui.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws."
There. Now, just for the hell of it, lets do a transitional, an ancient one that was predicted by the ToE long before it was actually found:
"Description
Skull showing spiracle holes above the eyes Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's "fins" have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion.[4] The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.[4][5]
Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures.[2] The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have—bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.[5]
In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish – like Eusthenopteron – exhibited a sequence of adaptations:
Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows;
Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land;
Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as:
Acanthostega which had feet with eight digits,
Ichthyostega with limbs.
Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:
Fish
fish gills
fish scales
"Fishapod"
half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
Tetrapod
tetrapod rib bones
tetrapod mobile neck
tetrapod lungs
Limb shoulder to find Tiktaalik generally had the characteristics of a lobe-finned fish, but with front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile, including a shoulder, elbow, and wrist. The rear fins and tail have not yet been found. It had rows[6] of sharp teeth of a predator fish, and its neck was able to move independently of its body, which is not possible in other fish. The animal also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's; eyes on top of its head, suggesting it spent a lot of time looking up; a neck and ribs similar to those of tetrapods, with the latter being used to support its body and aid in breathing via lungs; well developed jaws suitable for catching prey; and a small gill slit called a spiracle that, in more derived animals, became an ear.[7]
Life restoration of Tiktaalik roseae made for the National Science FoundationThe fossils were found in the "Fram Formation", deposits of meandering stream systems near the Devonian equator, suggesting a benthic animal that lived on the bottom of shallow waters and perhaps even out of the water for short periods, with a skeleton indicating that it could support its body under the force of gravity whether in very shallow water or on land. At that period, for the first time, deciduous plants were flourishing and annually shedding leaves into the water, attracting small prey into warm oxygen-poor shallows that were difficult for larger fish to swim in.[2] The discoverers said that in all likelihood, Tiktaalik flexed its proto-limbs primarily on the floor of streams and may have pulled itself onto the shore for brief periods.[9] Neil Shubin and Ted Daeschler, the leaders of the team, have been searching Ellesmere Island for fossils since 1999.[4][10]
“ We're making the hypothesis that this animal was specialized for living in shallow stream systems, perhaps swampy habitats, perhaps even to some of the ponds. And maybe occasionally, using its very specialized fins, for moving up overland. And that's what is particularly important here. The animal is developing features which will eventually allow animals to exploit land."
—Ted Daeschler,"
I dislike the "missing link" terminology. There are none, only information yet to come to light, and virtually all of it predicted by the Theory of Evolution. The discovery of Tiktaalik, after a lot of hard work, was a very pleasant surprise but not an astounding one.
|
| No, thats your opinion the creationists misinterpret that the second law including entropy equals order to disorder. We KNOW that that is not what entropy means. Entropy means that order cannot come from disorder, not order to disorder allthough entropy does cover this too it is not what we refer to. If i have 20 thousand matchsticks thrown into the air, will they come down in the form of a nice need home? No, this is the second law including entropy that we talk about. At the beginning of time there were 20 thousand matchsticks, so how did we get such an ordered structure without violating this law? In the beginning the universe was a closed system. Today it is still a closed system when it come to animals and humans. It is closed because of the DNA code. Sand dunes are not structure as you claim but a random movement of particles that do not conform to any order hence no sand dune is exactly the same. |
|
 |
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 02:24:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
I just stumbled upon this page and as a skeptics site i find it weird that nobody is sceptical of evolution. |
Says who? I demand evidence from evolutionary biologists just like I demand evolution from creationists. The difference is that the biologists can supply evidence, while the creationists point to the Bible, mistakes in logic and/or really bad "science" for support of their conclusions. |
No, creationists do point to the bible but not as a sole reason,(important). There is no difference from this and an evolutionist subscribing to "DARWINISM" or "DAWKINISM". Really,same difference really.
|
Sensing that he is way out gunned here, Matt shoots back with an observation (false as it is) and doesn't make any attempt to support his assertions. Shocking... Wait. I predicted he would do that.
Matt, we are a patient crowd. But you opened this can of worms. Hit and run creationists are a dime a dozen. (Interestingly, the only place this kind of debate can take place is on a site like ours. Go to a Christian site and try to defend evolution, and you will get banned. That has been my experience. Even being polite will not work. They don't want to here it. So Matt may not be used to actually having to support his assertions. Perhaps he thought his mention of thermodynamics would shut us down, as though we haven't heard that debunked canard hundreds of times.)
Just so you know, Matt. Darwin published around 150 years ago. A lot of science has been done since then. (By the way, Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution. His contribution was to suggest a plausible mechanism that drives it. His contribution to science was enormous, but really, so was Einsteins, and I don't ever remember being called an Einsteinist.) And Dawkins, aside from from his being an outspoken atheist, and a good teacher, is just one evolutionary biologist among many. Your suggestion that we pray at the alter of Darwin and Dawkins is just silly. But I understand why you suggest that. You need to think that we follow them religiously which takes some of the heat off of what you do. What we do follow is the evidence, wherever it goes. As Dave has suggested, you are just projecting.
Anyhow, enough. Let's see if you will man up and defend your assertions...
|
Looks like your assumptions were wrong just like your assumptions of evolution, because here i am. If you follow evidence then show me some transitional fossils that are PROVEN as such. Because if its not proven, then its a suggestion, and if its a suggestion, then its not fact , and if its not fact then its not evidence, and if its not evidence then you are not following evidence as you said you were. You are following someone elses opinion. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 02:40:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Evolution works in bits and pieces, changing one feature and/or another as it goes. Forget that micro/macro nonsense; it's all the same, damned thing: evolution. "Micro/macro" is a load of crap invented by Creationists to give them a talking point. For some perverse reason, it is now in use by scientists as well. Perhaps they don't want to confuse the opposition any more than they already have.
Anyhow, here is an example of how evolution works:
From Jaw to Ear: Transition Fossil Reveals Ear Evolution in Action
Now hear this: early mammal fossil shows how sensitive ear bones evolved
By David Biello
The mammal ear is a very precise system for hearing—enabling everything from human appreciation of music to the echolocation of bats. Three tiny bones known as ossicles—the hammer (malleus), anvil (incus) and stirrup (stapes)—work together to propagate sound from the outside world to the tympanic membrane, otherwise known as the eardrum. From there, the sound is transmitted to the brain and informs the listener about pitch, intensity and even location.
But it has been a mystery how this delicate system evolved from the cruder listening organs of our reptilian ancestors. Paleontologists have scoured fossil records in search of signs of how the jawbones of reptiles migrated and became the middle ear of mammals. Now Zhe-Xi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh and his colleagues have found one: Yanoconodon allini, an intermediate between modern mammals and their distant ancestors. "It helps to show a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears," Luo says.
|
There is no "poof-into-existence" in evolution; that is left to religious stories that not only have no evidential support, but actually defy the Laws of Physics as well as Logic.
As for abiogenesis, it remains to be seen. I personally, think the hypothesis is correct, but we lack as yet the exact process. Like evolution, research can be grindingly slow.
|
What do you mean there is no "POOF, into existence". Evolution has absolutely no answer for how life came about. It used to be said that life came from the amino acids formed by lightning strikes. Millers experiment is longer valid. Sure millers experiment is correct, I don’t deny it, electricity can produce amino acids. but evolutionists who are worth their salt know that the experiment is incorrect because the “ATMOSPHERE” used in Millers experiment is not one that evolutionists now believe was present at primordial soup ( discredited) time. You see oxygen was not present in the atmosphere by miller and was thought not to be present at primordial time but scientists now know that oxygen ( an oxidant) “WAS” present in “ABUNDANCE” at the time as is “PROVEN” by oxidants caused by oxygen in rocks formed at the primordial time. Millers experiment was repeated with oxygen contained within the atmosphere and no amino acids were formed.Oxygen destroys amino acids and prevents its creation via electricity. This makes the experiment redundant and scientists no longer believe this theory.
So it seems to me that evolution is the biggest subscriber of all to the "POOF into existence" idea. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 03:13:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by matt36
Hope there is some food for thought for some of you. Regards, Matt.
|
I'm afraid not. Your post is nearly impossible to read. May I suggest that if you want to quote someone, use the quote tag.
Of all the mish-mash you wrote I'd just like to single out this little tid-bit of yours:
| DNA science we are told prove evolution. Not so, if anything, DNA suggests a designer and anyone looking into it would agree unless they subscribe "blindly" to evolution. |
ONE of the problems with your statement is that evolution could be true even if DNA was designed. Your feeble attempt at arguing against DNA as evidence for evolution is but a false dichotomy. But then I suppose that you subscribe blindly to anything that seems to deny evolution, don't you?
|
Hi Hawks. nope. I dont subscribe to "anything" that deny's evolution. What i am doing here is trying to make you ppl realise that evolution is just a theory no more credible than creation. Nothing supports evolution to the point of irrefutable evidence or even remoteely close to it. There is a very large portion of science that says evolution is not possible though. No science that is proven and exact, repeatable and testable contradicts creation. But this is not about creation for me. Its about trying to get proud hearts to see how suckered in they have become by believing that evolution is an undeniable proven over and over again fact, when there is in FACT, no science at all to support the theory dispite BILLIONS X BILLIONS X BILLIONS of dollars been thrown at it, not to mention all those die hard evolutionists who were evolutionists even before entering the priesthood of evolutionary science, yet what have they uncovered except errors made public, lies, frauds, list goes on. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 03:20:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have been following this thread with interest. When I come to Matt36's post of the single word "Test", I draw a blank!
What does Matt want or what is he referring to when he posts the single word "Test"?
Anyone?
|
I think he was just trying out how to do quotes and such in his posts. Otherwise, beats me.
|
Ur a smart cookie. Maybee you have the capacity to work out that no evidence exists for the theory of evolution as well. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 03:40:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by matt36
Ok, to do a quote, simply go to the tool bar at the top of the page, where you will find a set of bolded quotation marks. Click on that and in your text, you will get this: [quote][/quote] All you have to do then is write between the quotes. Or, you can seclect some text and hit the "quote" feature and get the same thing.
Looking forward to your input...
Edited by Dr. Mabuse to 'fix' the quote tags. 
|
Thank you Filthy.
|
[i]De nada, but matt, you really must format your posts better. The one above is all but illegible -- indeed, my old eyes couldn't get through it. So, I'll merely comment on scientific theory.
A scientific theory is one that has so much supporting evidence that it becomes fact. Even so, it is left open-ended, as someone might find the equivalent of a Devonian Bunny and toss the whole thing into the waste bin. "Proof" means nothing in science except for mathematics and whiskey, and in those cases, more is better.
|
Wrong, science has proven that there is 24 hrs in a day. Science has proven that what goes up comes down, science has proven that DNA is complex where simple cells were once thought of as simple and thus the first life forms. Science has proven that these cells are almost as complex as the makeup of an entire human being. Science has proven that evolutionists were wrong about amino acids being formed by lightning strikes. Science has not proven evolution. You are treading on very thin ground saying that, "A scientific theory is one that has so much supporting evidence that it becomes fact." Most of your "supportive" data also fits into a creation theory, hence it is no proof at all for evolution because if it is than creation must also be a fact too and we all know both cannot be correct. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 03:49:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Is this one of the Oral Roberts homework trolls? Sorry Matt but your BS is far less creative than the usual creo.
I have one question to add to the list of questions you will ignore,
Please name one scientific fact(hint: its a trick question)
|
Well since im ignoring you maybe i should be smart enuf to stay away from your "TRAP". You dont have to tell me that its a trick question. But obviously im smart enuf at least to show you that your comment is incorrect. Most of you guys beleive there is no scientific facts because you cant prove evolution and the "FACTS" concerning evolution are "CHANGED" almost every day because they were flat out wrong. Now for the answer to your question. Fact: what goes up must come down. Themodynamics. List goes on for miles. tell me if i should continue here. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2009 : 04:21:08 [Permalink]
|
Oh goody! Claim # CBO35 1! I was wondering if we'd see that one. Thanks, it's been a while.
Claim CB035.1:
Free oxygen is fatal to abiogenesis scenarios such as those that Stanley Miller experimented with. Evidence indicates that the early earth had significant oxygen.
Source:
Ankerberg, John, Steve Austin, Duane Gish and Kurt Wise. 1990. The creation debate: oxygen -- the deathblow to life? http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/science/SC1202W3.htm
Response:
1.There is a variety of evidence that the early atmosphere did not have significant oxygen (Turner 1981).
•Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron.
•In rocks older than the banded iron formations, uranite and pyrite exist as detrital grains, or sedimentary grains that were rolling around in stream beds and beaches. These minerals are not stable for long periods in the present high-oxygen conditions.
•"Red beds," which are terrestrial sediments with lots of iron oxides, need an oxygen atmosphere to form. They are not found in rocks older than about 2.3 billion years, but they become increasingly common afterward.
•Sulfur isotope signatures of ancient sediments show that oxidative weathering was very low 2.4 billion years ago (Farquhar et al. 2000).
The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less (Copley 2001).
2.Free oxygen in the atmosphere today is mainly the result of photosynthesis. Before photosynthetic plants and bacteria appeared, we would expect little oxygen in the atmosphere for lack of a source. The oldest fossils (over a billion years older than the transition to an oxygen atmosphere) were bacteria; we do not find fossils of fish, clams, or other organisms that need oxygen in the oldest sediments. |
Abiogenesis is still hypothetical, but it's a strong hypothesis; a lot stronger than any fairy story from any religious text. So tell me; where exactly did you come up with the "abundant oxygen" speculation and what is the evidence in support of it?
| Hi Hawks. nope. I dont subscribe to "anything" that deny's evolution. What i am doing here is trying to make you ppl realise that evolution is just a theory no more credible than creation. Nothing supports evolution to the point of irrefutable evidence or even remoteely close to it. There is a very large portion of science that says evolution is not possible though. No science that is proven and exact, repeatable and testable contradicts creation. But this is not about creation for me. Its about trying to get proud hearts to see how suckered in they have become by believing that evolution is an undeniable proven over and over again fact, when there is in FACT, no science at all to support the theory dispite BILLIONS X BILLIONS X BILLIONS of dollars been thrown at it, not to mention all those die hard evolutionists who were evolutionists even before entering the priesthood of evolutionary science, yet what have they uncovered except errors made public, lies, frauds, list goes on. |
Please come up with evidence in support of these claims, otherwise I'm calling bullshit.
I'm calling bullshit anyway because you don't have any. Creationists seldom do. Anyhow:
"When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981"
I suggest opening the link and reading further. The article is quite detailed.
If I might be permitted a bit of quote mining:
| There is a very large portion of science that says evolution is not possible though. No science that is proven and exact, repeatable and testable contradicts creation. |
How large a portion and in what fields? Please document your answers.
From my studies, about the only scientists that subscribe to young earth creationism are the likes of Jonathon Sarfati & Jonathon Wells, et al. These clowns haven't published in their fields of research in years, thereby losing any scientific credence they might have had -- I note that you're from OZ. If you should happen to run into Sarfati, tell him Duvenoy sez hi, and that he's still a jumped-up apothecary! 
As I know from experience with creationists that you are unlikely to open the provided link (prove me wrong!) I'll excerpt it a little more:
"Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15"
Now then, please present some support for your case beyond simply making a statement and hand-waving. Thus far, that is about all I have seen.
|
"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! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/01/2009 06:41:20 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 05:41:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Within thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of random ways in which a system may be arranged often taken to be a measure of "disorder". Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, reducing the system's ability to do work as energy is lost to irretrievable heat. Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry. Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes are spontaneous and others are not; entropy is accordingly an index of a system's tendency towards spontaneous change, with systems tending to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. In fact, for isolated systems, entropy is constrained by the condition that it never decreases. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual motion" machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time.
An everyday example of entropy can be seen in a deck of cards. A deck ordered by suit and number will tend to progress towards a randomly arranged deck upon shuffling, because the latter system has more possible states than the former. Furthermore, this process is thermodynamically irreversible; restoring the deck to its ordered state requires the application of work. The recovery of the ordered deck via the random process of shuffling is highly unlikely because the random deck has a much higher entropy.
|
Perfectly parroted from Wikipedia, but you show nothing to indicate you understand the meaning of what you just copied-and-pasted from wiki.
Besides, copy-and-paste from another source verbatim without providing the source (like a link) is considered copyright violation, and stealing.
At least tell us where you copy from, and some way for us to tell what you copied from elsewhere and what words are truly your own.
Edited for spelling. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/01/2009 08:34:35 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 05:47:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by bngbuck
I have been following this thread with interest. When I come to Matt36's post of the single word "Test", I draw a blank!
What does Matt want or what is he referring to when he posts the single word "Test"?
Anyone?
|
I think he was just trying out how to do quotes and such in his posts. Otherwise, beats me.
|
Ur a smart cookie. |
And you're one of the dullest tools in the shed. Really, trying to antagonize us with comments like that only makes you appear more childish. You didn't lie about your age being 13+ when you registered?
Maybee you have the capacity to work out that no evidence exists for the theory of evolution as well.
|
Right back atcha!
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 05:51:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Wrong, science has proven that there is 24 hrs in a day. |
Wrong. People decided that there should be 24 hours in a day. Then measured up 60 minutes to take place in one hour, and 60 seconds to take place in one minute.
It's a defined measure. Not scientifically derived.
How illiterate are you anyway?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 06:33:34 [Permalink]
|
I think, just for the hell of it and while I have the chance, I'll put up the Cuffey. Lots of neat stuff in the Cuffey 'cause it's all about Synapsids. For those who might not be familiar with the term, a Synapsid is a mammal-like reptile (or is it the other way 'round?) and about as transitional as it gets. They appeared during that piece of evolutionary heaven called the Devonian and our ancient ancestors were among them.
Dimetrodon, a Synapsid
Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
|
| Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. |
Isn't that fascinating? Read on, it gets better & better as you go.
The Cuffey is the result of many years of research and is all but irrefutable. But that doesn't mean that a clever & convinced Creationist shouldn't try.
|
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/01/2009 06:34:57 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 09:01:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
What i am doing here is trying to make you ppl realise that evolution is just a theory no more credible than creation. Nothing supports evolution to the point of irrefutable evidence or even remoteely close to it. |
So, I'll ask you yet again what you would consider evidence in favor of evolution.
| There is a very large portion of science that says evolution is not possible though. |
You mean your silly insistence that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Have you got something interesting instead?
| No science that is proven and exact, repeatable and testable contradicts creation. |
Snicker... Yeah, right. Darn that radiometric dating. Darn that speed of light. Darn that... and so on.
| But this is not about creation for me. Its about trying to get proud hearts to see how suckered in they have become by believing that... |
Come on. You're a troll, aren't you? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 11:17:34 [Permalink]
|
Matt36:
Looks like your assumptions were wrong just like your assumptions of evolution, because here i am. If you follow evidence then show me some transitional fossils that are PROVEN as such. Because if its not proven, then its a suggestion, and if its a suggestion, then its not fact , and if its not fact then its not evidence, and if its not evidence then you are not following evidence as you said you were. You are following someone elses opinion. |
Actually, like my acceptance that evolution happens, I based my prediction that you would run from us on evidence. Most creationists do run away from us. I'm happy that you haven't done so, so far...
I made other predictions too. One is that you will never, under any circumstance, accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter how compelling the features of those fossils are, and no matter that a prediction was made that a fossil of that type would only be found at a level that is age specific to where that fossil should be if it exists. If you look for a mammal in Cambrian rock strata, you will not find one. If you look for a dinosaur in the Eocene rock strata, you will not find one. The fossils are where they should be and are consistent with what is predicted by evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, as well as geologists.
I have offered you three great transitional fossils. filthy has offered others. They were found were they should be, as predicted. And it wasn’t creationists who predicted those finds, and in fact, loathe them and wave them away as you have done, because each one of those finds is a stake through the heart those who think evolution doesn’t happen. Tortured logic usually follows each find in an attempt to discount them. Tortured logic is the creationist tool of choice.
So you wave away the fact that those finds were taken from predicted levels of the geological strata. You wave away the traits of those fossils as unimportant, even though they show what would be expected in a transitional, that being a mix of traits, those being traits of the animals that preceded them, and traits of animals that were to come. Basically, you have waved away all forensic evidence as not being proof, no matter how many times scientists go to specific places to look for, and find animals that should exist in a particular time period.
But hey, you can’t go there, can you. So you will yell something like “It doesn’t prove anything” or put “proof” in caps as though that means anything. You are being willfully blind to the evidence. But again, you must be. Once you concede that some theropod dinosaurs had feathers, and some early birds had dinosaur features, not found in any modern bird, both being obvious transitionals, you are cooked. I predicted you would deny those, and you have done so in such a lame way that you should be embarrassed by it.
If I may paraphrase your response to those transitionals that have been offered for your consideration; “Not PROOF, not PROOF, na na na na na na…”
The fact remains that those animals were recovered from age specific area's where evolutionary biologists suggested they might be found. ("Might" because fossilization is a rather rare occurrence. And then there is the job of finding them, which is often like searching for a needle in a haystack. The fossil record that we do have is nothing short of astonishing, given those difficulties.) And yet, you don’t see that as compelling evidence for evolution.
Whatever…
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 11:42:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
1.Piltdown... ok i know you all know that one. |
[CC001] Yes, and we all also know that it wasn't ever really seriously considered as an intermediary between ape and man. It was a curiosity until fraud was demonstrated via radiocarbon dating in 1953. But this counts as 1.| 2.Probably the most recent one is Archaeoraptor. |
[CC352] Yup, a case where a popular press magazine ran with a story by an art editor before allowing time for peer review. Several people suspected fraud before that NG issue went to the printers, but they expected the owners of the fossil to do the right thing (tell NG), which they didn't do. That's 2 for you.| 3. The transitional timeline for the evolution of horses. |
[CC216.2] A timeline is a fraudulent fossil? No points there. Also, plagiarizing from Answers in Genesis is theft and thus a sin. You'll notice that Answers in Genesis does not call the incorrect "textbook" progression of horses "fraud," anyway.| 4.Lucy the hominid. There are no Facial bones nor foot or hand bones. No skull cap and 60% of everything else is missing. The fossil is a complete fabrication. Professor David Menton of the university of washington said, "The statue is a complete misrepresentation and i believe they know its a misrepresentation". He was speaking of the wax figure protrayed on the museum and books of Lucy. But the worst part is this, The pelvis bones have been deliberatly changed to suit a more monkey like config. Apes have their pelvic bones in a flat sideways pointing direction while humans have their pelvic bone pointing in a forward position. This forward position is what enables man to stand erect and the pelvic bones of apes are such so that they are stooped. Lucys bones were changed. J Stern and R Sussman of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology said, "The fact that the anterior portion of the iliac blade faces laterally in humans but not in chimpanzees is obvious. The marked resemblance of Lucy to the chimpanzee is equally obvious. It suggests to us that the lateral pelvic balance during bipedalism was closer to that of apes than humans". Dr Owen Lovejoy actually seemed to disagree that Lucys bone could resemble a chimps so what does he do? He make a mould and gets a power saw out and "MODIFIES" the bones so that they fit as he would like them so that it backs up the case for evolution. There is a video of him actually doing this. |
Well, this is interesting. I've read lots of creationist crap about Lucy before, but never that she was faked. Where is this alleged video? Where is that Menton (creationist) quote from? Where is that Stern and Sussman quote from (I can only find it repeated in other creationist sources claiming not that Lucy was fraudulent, but that she's an ape)?
So, you've listed two frauds that I'll give you. I asked for three.| According to Rick Groleau and many others including notable evolutionists, Neandethals are humans. "Comparing mtDNA of these Neanderthals to mtDNA of living people from various continents, researchers have found that the Neanderthals' mtDNA is not more closely related to that of people from any one continent over another. This was an unwelcome finding for anthropologists" |
Matt, your pants are on fire. Here's the full quote from Mr. Groleau, with the parts that you left out, with your quote underlined and the important part in bold:Finding out about our most recent common ancestor relies solely on inferences from the mtDNA of people living today. What if we could actually compare our mtDNA with mtDNA of a distant ancestor? This, in fact, has been done, with mtDNA from the bones of Neanderthals. Comparing mtDNA of these Neanderthals to mtDNA of living people from various continents, researchers have found that the Neanderthals' mtDNA is not more closely related to that of people from any one continent over another. This was an unwelcome finding for anthropologists who believe that there was some interbreeding between Neanderthals and early modern humans living in Europe (which might have helped to explain why modern Europeans possess some Neanderthal-like features); these particular anthropologists instead would have expected the Neanderthals' mtDNA to be more similar to that of modern Europeans than to that of other peoples. Moreover, the researchers determined that the common ancestor to Neanderthals and modern Homo sapiens lived as long as 500,000 years ago, well before the most recent common mtDNA ancestor of modern humans. This suggests (though it does not prove) that Neanderthals went extinct without contributing to the gene pool of any modern humans. It is high irony that you should be pointing out alleged evolutionary frauds but then post a lie like this.| If you can find a single evolutionary scientist ever claiming that vestigial organs have no function, I'll send you ten bucks. In other words, you're making up a meaning for the word "vestigial" which no scientist uses. In still other words, you're just blindly following along with what your creationist preachers tell you. |
I did not make up the word Vestigial organs. here is an excerpt from the national geographic.
Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find
Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
July 30, 2009 |
Yup, except that Maggie Koerth-Baker isn't a scientist, evolutionary or otherwise, she's a journalist. You'll also note that she never claims any vestigal organ has no function, even if she mistakenly thought some were "useless," and nobody else in the article says "no function," either.
You also wrote:| Dave, dont treat me like im stupid please. |
Then stop lying to us.| A transitional fossil is exactly as the name says. Its a record of part of the transition from a lower evolved species to another. |
No, actually, a transitional fossil is one that displays characteristics from two different groups. It is not necessarily a "part of the transition." Archeopteryx is transitional, but no modern birds are descended from it.
You also wrote:| I have previously stated the differences between Micro and Macro evolution. But ill explain again in short. Micro isnt Darwinian evolution. Macro is. Micro does not modify a species to another higher evolved species, its still the same species and may in fact return to its previous state as was the case with Darwins finches. Macro is small steps, (not lots of micro,s equally a Macro) in transitions to a new species. |
Yeah, except that evolutionary biologists don't recognize any distinction between "micro" and "macro," and we have real-world observations of brand-new species. "Higher evolved species" is a creationist idea, not an evolutionary one. As is the idea if an organism returns "to its previous state," that's not evolution. None of these ideas are held by evolutionary biologists because they've never been a part of evolutionary theory. They are lies.
You also wrote:| No, thats your opinion the creationists misinterpret that the second law including entropy equals order to disorder. We KNOW that that is not what entropy means. Entropy means that order cannot come from disorder... |
No, your Wikipedia quotes show that "entropy" is "a measure of the number of random ways in which a system may be arranged."| ...not order to disorder allthough entropy does cover this too it is not what we refer to. If i have 20 thousand matchsticks thrown into the air, will they come down in the form of a nice need home? No, this is the second law including entropy that we talk about. At the beginning of time there were 20 thousand matchsticks, so how did we get such an ordered structure without violating this law? |
Because you are ignoring half the law. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says, in lay terms, that the order within a system cannot increase without work being done. If it were a flat prohibition on any increases in order, then snowflakes couldn't possibly form.| In the beginning the universe was a closed system. Today it is still a closed system when it come to animals and humans. It is closed because of the DNA code. |
The universe is a closed system because there's no energy transfer into or out of the universe. Life on Earth is an open system because we've got the Sun blasting down on us every day.
You also wrote:| If you follow evidence then show me some transitional fossils that are PROVEN as such. |
They are "proven" to be transitional by using the correct definition of "transitional."
You also wrote:| What do you mean there is no "POOF, into existence". Evolution has absolutely no answer for how life came about. |
Evolution doesn't address abiogensis. Modern evolutionary biology theory begins only when biology begins, and not before (even if I think it should be otherwise). I suppose you would fault your highschool math teachers for not talking about the origins of pizza, too? Different subjects, different theories. Faulting some theory for not covering things outside its realm is just ridiculous.| It used to be said that life came from the amino acids formed by lightning strikes. Millers experiment is longer valid. Sure millers experiment is correct, I don’t deny it, electricity can produce amino acids. but evolutionists who are worth their salt know that the experiment is incorrect because the “ATMOSPHERE” used in Millers experiment is not one that evolutionists now believe was present at primordial soup ( discredited) time. You see oxygen was not present in the atmosphere by miller and was thought not to be present at primordial time but scientists now know that oxygen ( an oxidant) “WAS” present in “ABUNDANCE” at the time as is “PROVEN” by oxidants caused by oxygen in rocks formed at the primordial time. Millers experiment was repeated with oxygen contained within the atmosphere and no amino acids were formed.Oxygen destroys amino acids and prevents its creation via electricity. This makes the experiment redundant and scientists no longer believe this theory. |
I asked you before to support these claims of yours, and you have so far refused. I posted information showing how wrong some of those claims are, and now you're posting them again. I can only conclude that you know the claims are lies, and you don't care that you're lying and have been caught lying.
You also wrote:| What i am doing here is trying to make you ppl realise that evolution is just a theory no more credible than creation. |
Well, if you need to lie to do it, how is it that you should be thought of as credible?| No science that is proven and exact, repeatable and testable contradicts creation. |
You've been asked for examples of "exact science," and have neglected to provide any.| Its about trying to get proud hearts to see how suckered in they have become by... |
...by lying to them about evolutionary theory. What was your point again?
You also wrote:| Wrong, science has proven that there is 24 hrs in a day. |
I know Mab has already called your bluff on this one, but it's just too funny to not re-quote. Matt, if I call you stupid again, you'll know why.| Science has proven that what goes up comes down... |
Nevermind the Voyager probes.| Most of your "supportive" data also fits into a creation theory... |
Name a creation theory that includes trillions of dead creatures before the creation of man.| ...and we all know both cannot be correct. |
But both can be wrong, so disproving one isn't a proof of the other. Which is why we look for supporting evidence, of which there is none for any creation story.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
