|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2011 : 02:04:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
Because I have studied the science, ID applies only real science, the 2nd law is real science, the 2nd law states that with spontaneous reactions, systems will tend to disorder... |
This completely ignores the concept of an isolated system. In non-isolated systems, energy can be added to the system to overcome any increase of entropy, thus eliminating the trend altogether. Furthermore, spontaneous reactions can decrease local entropy by dumping heat into the environment (again, not in an isolated system).
Obviously, I misspoke when I said before that your knowledge of thermodynamics begins and ends with SLOT. I gave you far too much credit. Your knowledge of thermodynamics begins and ends with a truncated and twisted form of SLOT that no physicist would ever hold.| ...genomes are systems that mutate with spontaneous mutations... |
But genomes are not isolated systems, and mutations due to radiation are not spontaneous.| ...and this is only rejected by those who choose to reject science they don't like to support their belief systems... |
Like you, Jerry. You ignore everything about SLOT that disagrees with your nutty ideas about what it should say.| All science is a tenet of ID. |
So you're saying that ID is nothing more than a synonym for science, yes? If so, then it must be a tenet of ID that SLOT doesn't apply to non-isolated systems like living organisms or their genomes, wouldn't you agree? It must be a tenet of ID that SLOT doesn't apply to non-spontaneous reactions like a gamma ray mutating a DNA strand, correct? And it must also be true that ID is taught in schools exactly as much as "other sciences," since all those sciences are ID, right?
|
I completely ignore isolated systems because planet Earth and/or genes are not in one, so how is that even relevant to the discussion?
And it is true that in open systems entropy can rise or fall and that the addition of energy can lower entropy. But what does this mean to our discussion?
It means that in an open system, we must calculate entropy to know what it's doing. I did in the human genome and it is rising. That is the bottom line.
And what energy would be added to a system to stop genes from mutating? Could I hold a genome out in the sun for awhile? Nah, that's kind of silly.
While it's true that mutations caused by radiation are not spontaneous, that's also irrelevant because by far the bulk of mutations are just random. They just happen. |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 02:42:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JerryB
And I have refuted ALL of those who claimed I had no understanding of the presented papers. Would you like to have a go at it?
|
Apparently you haven't. It did not take long for someone to respond to this comment stating that you have not adequately supported this claim. My getting involved in this thread was to ask you to address the legitimate concerns and questions, there is a list, that you have been avoiding.
I would also ask you to honestly consider why ID is not being taught as science in schools, even at an introductory level, such as ID 101.
Is it on par with the others? Meaning I guess equal to the others? No, it is not taught in schools nearly as much as the others but it is here if you want to study it.
|
20+ years later ID is still not science without redefining science as Behe did under oath. If you'll keep an open mind you may come to the same conclusion that the majority of working scientists have already reached.
Take care of yourself, Jerry.
|
I'm ignoring the list because it is simply not relevant to the current discussion. That old debate is over and one can go back and read it if they wish. Most of those questions have already been answered and are just rehashing old material.
ID is not being taught in schools because it has become watered down with creationism and that is obvious to virtually everyone. I have tried MY best to keep creationism out of ID, but there are a lot more of them than there are of me. I don't want theology taught as science, either.
But there is another side of ID that is not well known and that is why I have spent years on forums trying to educate people to this fact: When one removes 6000 year-old earths and gods waving magic wands and looks only at science, It is not hard to see design in the universe.
Events from the big bang forward suggest design. Matter cannot just poof itself from a void via some primeval atom (whatever that is) that existed in a universe that did not even exist itself before the big bang created it. Life cannot suddenly and magically emerge from a pool of chemicals, then grow and become more complex against the laws of science. Everything around us and past events behind us suggests that something or someone caused everything that we are.
I am one curious guy that plods forward and won't rest until I have the answers.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 03:01:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
Yes, it has brought you cures for diseases. Louie Pasture was an excellent IDist. Do your kids benefit from vaccinations? |
How, exactly, are vaccinations and/or Louis Pasteur of ID derivation specifically, if all of science is "tenets of ID?"| How about Boyle, one of my favorite IDists... |
Why is Boyle an "IDist?"
|
Boyle believed in a designer. In fact, according to Michael Hunter, Robert Boyle Reconsidered (1994), Jan Wojcik, Robert Boyle and the Limits of Reason (1991), he was a lay preacher that spent much of his time raising money to have the New Testament translated into other languages.
So did Pasteur. His son-in-law writes: "Absolute faith in God and in Eternity, and a conviction that the power for good given to us in this world will be continued beyond it, were feelings which pervaded his whole life; the virtues of the gospel had ever been present to him. Full of respect for the form of religion which had been that of his forefathers, he came simply to it and naturally for spiritual help in these last weeks of his life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
How can one be a Christian and not believe in a designer? |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 03:15:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JerryB
No, ID does not attempt to explain the diversity of life, we leave that to biology.
And "life on earth in the present day isn't the same as it was a million years ago, and life on earth a million years ago wasn't the same as life on earth 100,000 million years ago..." really doesn't mean anything as to the origins of more complex life.
If it were seeded or designed in place, no one is saying that it all happened at once. I believe that certain life-forms were designed in the era that we see in the record.
So, if you don't think that my answer: ID has no overall theory was sufficient, please give me the theory of astronomy. If you can't, according to your logic, astronomy is not science either.
And I both identify the designer and propose a methodology for design. I just have not done the latter yet. One point at a time, please. |
None of this makes sense. You've taken a well-established term that has been applied specifically to an alternate theory to evolution as a way to explain the diversity of life on earth, and tried to apply it-- in a way I admit I cannot understand-- to some entire branch of ill-defined... science. Or something.
Your attempt to say that ID = astronomy or ID = physics lacks all sense.
|
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that ID is just a different paradigm that one can use to explore his world around him. It is just a different body of thought.
And as a body of thought, it is not in itself a theory. Neither are other bodies of thought.
Yet, people keep demanding that I produce the "theory of ID." Well, there isn't one and it doesn't make anymore sense to demand I produce a "theory of ID" than it does to demand that I produce the "theory of astronomy." There isn't one of those, either.
Biology studies the diversity of life, and IDists and Darwinists study biology. The only difference between me and you (assuming you are a Darwinist) is that when you study biology, you may see only natural forces at play in tissue and I may see design. That is the only difference-different paradigms. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 03:19:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Missed this the first time around:Originally posted by JerryB
I believe that certain life-forms were designed in the era that we see in the record. |
Which "certain life-forms," specifically?
|
Well, whatever life-forms we find in that era. We find only simple life-forms in the Precambrian era, thus I would think those were the ones designed at that time.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 03:20:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by moakley
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by River Otter
So what exactly is an "Intelligent Agent?"
|
Never heard of Maxwell Smart? Now there is an intelligent agent if I have ever seen one.
Last time I checked, evolution explains what happened AFTER life on earth began, not before.
|
Well, you better check again because if there is not something there to evolve then the whole operation is shit out of luck.
|
I believe I will just go back to reading since what I would like to see explained has already by asked and presented in a convenient list. We'll see.
Take care of yourself Jerry.
|
Thanks for your posts. Chime in at anytime. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 03:43:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Jerry, astronomy is a field of study. There are certainly well-established theories within astronomy, but it's nonsensical to ask for a theory of astronomy. Likewise, biology is the field of study of living things. ID purports to be an alternative to the theory of evolution as the best possible explanation for life on earth. So if there *is no* theory of intelligent design, then that's a big problem for you, and trying to compare it to a field of study does nothing to distract from that problem. |
Bingo. And ID is a field of study. Therefore, there is no theory of ID, but there are theories within it as well. And ID is not limited only to living things. We also muse about the inception of the universe.
| Whoa, what? How have you managed to identify the designers? I'd love to see how you worked that one out. And a methodology too! That's like the holy grail for IDers. I can hardly wait to hear it. But remember--just saying a magic man *poofed* things into existence using magic is not a methodology. |
No, that wouldn't be a methodology, would it. I will get into design methodology next. But I've already identified what I believe to be the designer by introducing a paper I wrote on it a few years back:
http://ozarkfresh.com/quantummechanicsinmetaphysics.html
I identify the designer via tying Heisenberg's notion that the path of an electron only comes into existence when it is observed, to the fact that particles behave differently in the double slit physics experiments when an observer is present, then tie that all together with the work of Frank Tipler, chair of the physics dept at Tulane as he mathematically constructs an observer of the universe and traces it to a pocket of intelligent quantum mechanics observing the universe from the future back to the present.
Does QM sound like a magic man poofing things into existence?  |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/11/2011 : 04:56:13 [Permalink]
|
We didn't spend much time on the fossil record's support, or lack of it, for ID before getting back into the same, tired rut as in that other thread, did we? I suspect that someone chickened out.
In any event, all of us kids have a favorite fossil or several. Usually it’s something out of Dinosauria, such as T. rex. A couple of mine are much more interesting than an overgrown, bipedal charnal house: Acanthostega. I like this one as it shows it's piscine ancestory quite clearly. It had gills as well as lungs and a soft spine and notochord among other, fishy features. It was a predatory, Devonian amphibian with eight toes on each limb. It had neither wrists nor ankles, and it‘s spine would be hard pressed to support it on land. It had a sensatory, lateral line, just like a fish.
Although capable of it, due to it’s physical properties, it probably left the water but rarely, if ever.
While it would be inept on land and a nosh for the first Ichthyostega to wander by, it must have been quite fleet and agile in the marshes where it lived.
Still with me, Jerry?
Ichthyostega was a different kettle of sally all together. This was a burly rascal with a heavily ossified spine and strong legs.
Jarvik first reconstruction of Ichthyostega was published in 1955. His final effort, with modest differences, accompanied his 1996 monograph. He presented an essentially terrestrial tetrapod with vestiges of its piscine ancestry, most notably its finned tail. It had an extensively ossified and undifferentiated spine, robust limbs and girdles, and a rather conventional pes (foot) containing five digits; the manus (hand) is unknown, but it too was depicted conventionally. The most remarkable features presented by Jarvik was the already mentioned finned tail and the bizarre ribs. These ribs, which are narrow both proximally and distally, broadened dramatically in the middle and extensively overlap adjacent ribs. Presumably, this unique anatomy helped protect the lungs while the animal's trunk was not supported by buoyant water. It would also appear to restrict the side-to-side flexing crucial to conventional locomotion.
|
Indeed, there is a school of thought that, when in a hurry, it might have humped along like an inchworm due to it's skeletal construction.
So here we have two (count ‘em: 2) Devonian amphibians. Whaddya think?
Also, I still await your remarks on the Synapsids and the Tiktaalik tranitionals.
|
"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 01/11/2011 05:09:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 05:51:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I completely ignore isolated systems because planet Earth and/or genes are not in one, so how is that even relevant to the discussion?
And it is true that in open systems entropy can rise or fall and that the addition of energy can lower entropy. But what does this mean to our discussion? |
You've brought up SLOT numerous times, yet SLOT only applies to isolated systems. You are now saying in no uncertain terms that your references to SLOT in relation to "planet Earth and/or genes" were all bunk.| It means that in an open system, we must calculate entropy to know what it's doing. I did in the human genome and it is rising. That is the bottom line. |
The bottom line is that you never did calculate ΔS, since Boltzmann's formula doesn't result in ΔS. When you tried to calculate ΔS, you pulled a random number out of your butt to use for comparison of results of Boltzmann's formula. Nevermind that Boltzmann's formula is for systems in equilibrium, and you've already agreed that life is not one, so your use of Boltzmann's formula is bunk (and yes, Schrödinger was wrong to use it, too).| And what energy would be added to a system to stop genes from mutating? Could I hold a genome out in the sun for awhile? Nah, that's kind of silly. |
Not in plants. The sun is precisely how they get their energy to do things like repair their DNA. In creatures that don't photosynthesize, they eat food in order to gain energy. It's not surprising that you don't know these things.| While it's true that mutations caused by radiation are not spontaneous, that's also irrelevant because by far the bulk of mutations are just random. They just happen. |
You were insisting that spontaneous reactions tend to increase entropy. But that's irrelevant in non-isolated systems (which you agree that both life and genomes are), and doesn't apply at all to non-spontaneous reactions. You are saying in no uncertain terms that your appeal to the tendency of entropy to increase due to spontaneous reactions in relation to "planet Earth and/or genes" is bunk. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 05:54:47 [Permalink]
|
As promised, I will now propose a design methodology.
Those who have followed the discussions thus far understand that I propose the designer to be quantum mechanics--intelligent particles acting within the universe.
And how is design accomplished at the molecular level? Again, via quantum mechanics.
Let's begin by throwing out a post-grad paper on the subject:
http://www.nd.edu/~ed/Teaching/molecular_theory_notes.pdf
In this engineering course in molecular design taught by Edward J. Maginn, University of Notre Dame, we discover how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout the paper that the understanding of molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.
Methodologies used to get from the statistical mechanics of molecules to the properties of macroscopic systems are quite complex and have been difficult to understand and calculate in the past, Maginn asserts. However, great progress has been made in the last ten or twenty years and today, even complex systems can be understood.
“Statistical mechanics play a central role within the hierarchy of approaches for first principle design of engineering materials. An alternative design process, utilizing a “shotgun” approach, is called combinatorial chemistry of combinatorial synthesis. The tools discussed in this class are also applicable to this process, as some guidance on the molecular level can greatly reduce the number of “trials” one makes and thus can help focus the search for new materials in the combinatorial approach. The following figure depicts a rational design “hierarchy” strategy. We see that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental step in the process……”
A schematic by D.L. Theodorou is introduced in the paper to synopsize the process:
In chapter 4 entitled Equilibrium Ensembles Maginn announces the HOW of approximating macroscopics from microscopic states of molecular interactions and concludes this is best done by statistical mechanics:
"What we wish to do in this chapter is set up a statistical mechanical framework. From this framework, we hope to derive the laws of macroscopic thermodynamics from a fundamental set of postulates governing the microscopic state of the system. Most important to us for this class is the form of the expressions for thermodynamic quantities, such as equations of state, heat capacities, etc. We want to show how these observable quantities are obtained from nothing more than molecular interactions. Besides these macroscopic quantities, we can also obtain important microscopic details such as molecular organization, motion, and structure."
He then does so. Enter the math at your own peril.
I will restate this for clarification for most people at the level of this forum. If we know the macroscopics of a design, then we can also deduce the microscopics of it. (remember my statements on this up to this point??)
And the design of man began with the design of his microstates: cells. I think by now that you guys understand I don't believe something waved a wand and "poofed" man into existence. This happened over a period of billions of years and this is what we see in the fossil record.
First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens.
Understanding this, it is not hard to propose another process graph similar to the one posted above:
Life was designed just as any other chemical process is designed; all of it being accomplished by nothing more than intelligent quantum mechanics seeking a purpose within the universe: life as we know it. And aren't you glad because life is not that bad, is it?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 05:55:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I'm ignoring the list because it is simply not relevant to the current discussion. |
Since most of the questions are from this very thread and many of them are about what you claim that ID predicts, they are very relevant to this discussion.| Events from the big bang forward suggest design. Matter cannot just poof itself from a void via some primeval atom (whatever that is) that existed in a universe that did not even exist itself before the big bang created it. |
Nobody makes any such claims.| Life cannot suddenly and magically emerge from a pool of chemicals, then grow and become more complex against the laws of science. |
Nobody makes any such claims.| Everything around us and past events behind us suggests that something or someone caused everything that we are. |
Indeed, there are causes for everything that happens macroscopically, but that fact doesn't imply design.| I am one curious guy that plods forward and won't rest until I have the answers. |
Yet you reject the answers that science provides. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 06:04:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
As promised, I will now propose a design methodology. |
But all you've done is taken one design methodology flowchart and replace the steps with other words without justifying any of them.| First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens. |
Bwaahahahahahaha! Every other living creature has gone through the exact same process, yet is not the "ultimate product?" Says who?| Life was designed just as any other chemical process is designed; all of it being accomplished by nothing more than intelligent quantum mechanics seeking a purpose within the universe: life as we know it. |
How is life a "purpose within the universe?" Where is your evidence that quantum mechanics seeks a purpose?| And aren't you glad because life is not that bad, is it? |
Life is brutal and short and the world is full of credulous folks like you, Jerry. I would have designed something much different had I been at the helm. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 06:33:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
We didn't spend much time on the fossil record's support, or lack of it, for ID before getting back into the same, tired rut as in that other thread, did we? I suspect that someone chickened out.
In any event, all of us kids have a favorite fossil or several. Usually it’s something out of Dinosauria, such as T. rex. A couple of mine are much more interesting than an overgrown, bipedal charnal house: Acanthostega. I like this one as it shows it's piscine ancestory quite clearly. It had gills as well as lungs and a soft spine and notochord among other, fishy features. It was a predatory, Devonian amphibian with eight toes on each limb. It had neither wrists nor ankles, and it‘s spine would be hard pressed to support it on land. It had a sensatory, lateral line, just like a fish.
Although capable of it, due to it’s physical properties, it probably left the water but rarely, if ever.
While it would be inept on land and a nosh for the first Ichthyostega to wander by, it must have been quite fleet and agile in the marshes where it lived.
Still with me, Jerry?
Ichthyostega was a different kettle of sally all together. This was a burly rascal with a heavily ossified spine and strong legs.
Jarvik first reconstruction of Ichthyostega was published in 1955. His final effort, with modest differences, accompanied his 1996 monograph. He presented an essentially terrestrial tetrapod with vestiges of its piscine ancestry, most notably its finned tail. It had an extensively ossified and undifferentiated spine, robust limbs and girdles, and a rather conventional pes (foot) containing five digits; the manus (hand) is unknown, but it too was depicted conventionally. The most remarkable features presented by Jarvik was the already mentioned finned tail and the bizarre ribs. These ribs, which are narrow both proximally and distally, broadened dramatically in the middle and extensively overlap adjacent ribs. Presumably, this unique anatomy helped protect the lungs while the animal's trunk was not supported by buoyant water. It would also appear to restrict the side-to-side flexing crucial to conventional locomotion.
|
Indeed, there is a school of thought that, when in a hurry, it might have humped along like an inchworm due to it's skeletal construction.
So here we have two (count ‘em: 2) Devonian amphibians. Whaddya think?
Also, I still await your remarks on the Synapsids and the Tiktaalik tranitionals.
|
Yeah, I'm still with you. My threads tend to get busy and it is hard to stay on any one subject long enough to discuss it to everyone's satisfaction, but I try.
These are all interesting critters. And I must say that if I were of the Darwinist bent, I might see them as good evidence for Darwinism.
The problem is, I am not. What you have shown me are odd creatures, but what you haven't shown me is that they evolved to get that way.
For example, You and the article stated that Acanthostega was ill suited for land, so why then would lungs begin to evolve? That makes no sense.
From my perspective, it is an interesting design as are all of your examples and I would surmise that this critter was designed to be a water dweller, but like crocs and alligators, it was also capable of crawling out on land for food. Why is that a big deal?
What you would have to show to bolster Darwinism is to begin with a series such as:
Species A -----> trans1 -----> trans2 -----> trans3 -----> trans4
-----> trans5 -----> New Species B
You then would have to show that Species A could have bred with trans1 to produce viable, fertile offspring, same with all the trans as we walk up the line, and finally that Species A and New Species B could no longer interbreed.
That would be what science demands in order to have a theory and the evidence just isn't there.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 06:58:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
I completely ignore isolated systems because planet Earth and/or genes are not in one, so how is that even relevant to the discussion?
And it is true that in open systems entropy can rise or fall and that the addition of energy can lower entropy. But what does this mean to our discussion? |
You've brought up SLOT numerous times, yet SLOT only applies to isolated systems. You are now saying in no uncertain terms that your references to SLOT in relation to "planet Earth and/or genes" were all bunk.| It means that in an open system, we must calculate entropy to know what it's doing. I did in the human genome and it is rising. That is the bottom line. |
The bottom line is that you never did calculate ΔS, since Boltzmann's formula doesn't result in ΔS. When you tried to calculate ΔS, you pulled a random number out of your butt to use for comparison of results of Boltzmann's formula. Nevermind that Boltzmann's formula is for systems in equilibrium, and you've already agreed that life is not one, so your use of Boltzmann's formula is bunk (and yes, Schrödinger was wrong to use it, too).| And what energy would be added to a system to stop genes from mutating? Could I hold a genome out in the sun for awhile? Nah, that's kind of silly. |
Not in plants. The sun is precisely how they get their energy to do things like repair their DNA. In creatures that don't photosynthesize, they eat food in order to gain energy. It's not surprising that you don't know these things.| While it's true that mutations caused by radiation are not spontaneous, that's also irrelevant because by far the bulk of mutations are just random. They just happen. |
You were insisting that spontaneous reactions tend to increase entropy. But that's irrelevant in non-isolated systems (which you agree that both life and genomes are), and doesn't apply at all to non-spontaneous reactions. You are saying in no uncertain terms that your appeal to the tendency of entropy to increase due to spontaneous reactions in relation to "planet Earth and/or genes" is bunk.
|
Are you back to the old "Slot only applies to isolated systems" thingy again? I post reference after reference to overcome one of your silly posits like this hoping that you won't mislead a noninformed reader, you shut up about it for a few posts, then come right back with the same thing hoping no one will notice that you lost that point in debate just a few posts back.
You don't remember us discussing Feynman, Schrodinger and Ilya Prigogine ALL who worked with SLOT in open systems?
You are going to have to understand that SLOT is a universal law and applies to EVERYTHING in the universe. The fact that this law can be overcome via the addition of energy doesn't mean it don't apply. It DOES apply, it's just that it is overcome in that particular situation.
Yes, spontaneous reactions tend to increase entropy and is doesn't make a lick of difference whether that reaction happens in an insulated thermos or in your hand. It still produces heat, doesn't it? And the addition of heat into a system always increases entropy doesn't it? Here's the answer: yes.
And I have already shown you that I can easily calculate destaS using that same formula. Please go back and re-read the thread that debate was in.
You simply lost that debate, you don't like it and you are coming back with the same stale arguments, twisted (you hope) a little different. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2011 : 07:26:04 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I'm still with you. My threads tend to get busy and it is hard to stay on any one subject long enough to discuss it to everyone's satisfaction, but I try.
These are all interesting critters. And I must say that if I were of the Darwinist bent, I might see them as good evidence for Darwinism.
The problem is, I am not. What you have shown me are odd creatures, but what you haven't shown me is that they evolved to get that way.
For example, You and the article stated that Acanthostega was ill suited for land, so why then would lungs begin to evolve? That makes no sense.
From my perspective, it is an interesting design as are all of your examples and I would surmise that this critter was designed to be a water dweller, but like crocs and alligators, it was also capable of crawling out on land for food. Why is that a big deal?
What you would have to show to bolster Darwinism is to begin with a series such as:
Species A -----> trans1 -----> trans2 -----> trans3 -----> trans4
-----> trans5 -----> New Species B
You then would have to show that Species A could have bred with trans1 to produce viable, fertile offspring, same with all the trans as we walk up the line, and finally that Species A and New Species B could no longer interbreed.
That would be what science demands in order to have a theory and the evidence just isn't there.
|
Ah, the old God of the Gaps argument:
Example A to example C are known. There is a gap between them, then example B is found. "But," sez the creationist, that proves nothing because now you have two gape; A-1 and B-1."
Like Tikaalik, these amphibians show traits both found and not found in fish and terrestial tetrapods. Did you know that Tikaalik, definatly a fish, had working wrists in it's lobed pectoral fins? Had you opened the links, you would.
And I still see no reason to conclude that some conscious, invisable designer brewed up these very interesting, intermediate creatures.
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
