Evolution and Creationism

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Originally posted by Erik+Sep 18 2004, 10:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Erik @ Sep 18 2004, 10:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wild Bill Kelso@Sep 18 2004, 08:20 AM
"The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution."

Yes, lets trust this nazi, he must be real smart, killing thousands of innocent jews in auswitch. [/b][/quote]
Umm.... I think you may have him mistaken for someone else,unless Gregor Mendel came back as a rotting corpse to to kill thousands of innocent people...

[KingOfTheIsles]

So called camp doctors, especially the notorious Josef Mengele, would torture and inflict incredible suffering on Jewish children, Gypsy children and many others. Patients were put into pressure chambers, tested with drugs, castrated, frozen to death, and exposed to various other traumas.

When a mother did not want to be separated from her thirteen-year-old daughter, and bit and scratched the face of the SS man who tried to force her to her assigned line, Mengele drew his gun and shot both the woman and the child. As a blanket punishment, he sent to the gas chamber all people from that transport who had previously been selected for work, with the comment: Away with this ******!



Polished boots slightly apart, his thumb resting on his pistol belt, Mengele surveyed his prey with those dead gimlet eyes. Death to the left, life to the right. Four hundred thousand souls - babies, small children, young girls, mothers, fathers, and grandparents - are said to have been casually waved to the lefthand side with a flick of the cane clasped in a gloved hand.

There were moments when Mengele came alive. There was excitement in his eyes, a tender touch in his hands. This was the moment when Josef Mengele, the geneticist, found a pair of twins.

At Auschwitz Mengele did a number of twin studies, and these twins were usually murdered after the experiment was over and their bodies dissected. In the case of the twins, he drew sketches of each twin, for comparison. Mengele was almost fanatical about drawing blood from twins, mostly identical twins. Only a few survived ...

Yes, lets trust this nazi, he must be real smart, killing thousands of innocent jews in auswitch.

You must mean this Josef Mengele. Gregor Mendel lived in the 19th century.

[Syron]

@ Legionnairex: I think I'm going to go insane, you profess practically no knowledge of evolution yet you claim to be such a great position to undermine it, that's hypocracy. "the evidence is dubious at best", how can you say such a thing when you are not sure what the evidence is!

Some of those falicies that you quote may be true that means jack, I never thought that Darwin used these to back up evolution. He seemed to have enough evidence then without them. Of course there are going to be hoaxes and wrong interpretations of what is happening, The fact that you can only quote around 7 examples of this from the millions of other samples that are evidence of evolution. just goes to show how robust the theory is. I can't believe that you are trying to base your arguement on the fact that there were hoaxes that were found out, none , I repeat none, in anyway disproves evolutionary theory they just prove that people are not infallible.

Genetics don't allow for series of random mutations, which randomly spread throughout a population, which end up creating a totally new species with a different body structure and different organs. It just makes no sense. A frog has a completely different structure than a fish. And what allows a fish to genetically mutate into a frog. It is un-needed and unneccessary for this to occur.

If I were you I wouldn't state that I know little about evolution and then try and tell everyone how you think it works! Gentics does allow a series of random mutation to happen, tell me what makes you think it can't.

In every generation there are mutations, it's part of what makes some people quite different to others. While many of these genetic mutations may not be useful or harmful others are harmful, genetic diseases for example, and some are useful, like how some animals in Africa a long time ago developed a mutation that made their necks slightly longer than average. As the trees they foraged for in turn evolved to produce higher leaves the animals that survived were the ones that had longer necks to reach them. These interbred giving their mutations to their offspring leading, over very many generations, to the animals we call Giraffes, just one example of evolution.

The place where your going wrong is that firstly you say that fish evolved into frogs, not quite right there, the process is progressive. secondly you say that it is unnessary. That just shows you have no idea about population pressures and changing habitats actually does.


Consider this scenario, A population of shore dwelling fish millions of years ago suffer a catastrophy. Their supply of food (say some sort of aquatic animal) is pushed because of some environmental pressure into living closer to the shoreline in the shallows. The predatory fish must be able to navigate the really shallow water byut they are not really adapted to it. Some of the fish in the population though actually have a genetic mutation making their skeletal structure more suited to shollow water living. Over many generations the fish that survive are the ones who can reach the prey so evetually the whole population has the adaption. It doesn't stop there though. Having fins is not really an advantage in the shallows, it is more energy efficient to propell yourself from the bottom so slowly those fish whose fins are slightly mutated into being more stiffened actually have an energy advantage therefore over many generations have all now got stiffer fore-"proto"-limbs.

Now say there is another catastrophy and the prey that the fish have been eating die out in this area for some reason (say disease), the fish will die unless some of them change their eating habits to feed on something else. Using their protolimbs these "fish" can now jump out of the water to eat new pray such as ground dwelling insects near the shorline. To catch more of these insects it helps to be able to breathe out of water as many of these "fish" will die if they get stranded. Some of the fish develop a mutation that gives them oxygen porous skin when wet (due to diffusion), this adaption is very useful and over many generation it is those with this mutation that survive.

So what do we have now? An animal with oxygen porous skin, lays its eggs in water but can feed out of it and already has protolimbs, sound quite like a frog to me. I could go on but I think you should get the idea now.

[Anoikis]

Mendel was a monk who taught high school biology in austria; hardly the nazi type


I've been trying to avoid this thread; well, i can't.

1. there seems to a misunderstanding of the words 'fact' and 'theory'
Evolution is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.
the theory is what has been debatable; i.e. what are the laws governing evolution; what are the laws governing gravity?
fact and theory, scientifically speaking, are not mutually exclusive.

2. religion is religion, science is science. there is no need to use one to explain the other. AND there is NO DAMN reason why religion should be taught in science classrooms. This is not an anti-religious view; in fact, it is pro-religious. Why would we want to contaminate something as beautiful as relligion and faith with science?


more later, i'm going to breakfast with my wife.

[glorfindel87]

Originally posted by KingOfTheIsles@Sep 18 2004, 08:01 AM
Are you gonna give facts, or just make random, general statements with no point, let alone evidence?

You want me to give facts?
Why are there no transitional forms?
Why does evolution contradict a law of thermodynamics?
Why do evolutionary scientists when they go far back have to add another half billion or so years to the life of the universe because they dont want to confront the question "Where did all those gases and whatnot that 'caused' the 'Big Bang' come from?"
When did the universe begin?
I think I will take the few small "problems" with creation (I havent found any but anyway) over the countless problems with evolution any day. I'm ::ot::

[SpiderGoat]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Sep 18 2004, 08:37 AM

[...]
I've read those sites front and back! They clearly state that evolution has very little true evidence to back it up. They go on to say that it is based upon assumptions and that evolutionists bend new research to fit the evolutionary tree. Evolution has little evidence. The fossil record just comfirms this.

Jeez man, where did you get this rubbish? Piltdown man a fraud? Neandertal just a variation? The site states as if these things are 'accepted'... By who? The pope? The guy who wrote all that? Scientists have not found the Piltdown man a fraud, nor is it 'accepted' that Neandertal is just a variation. Where is this guy getting all these 'facts'?

You're 12, you've read the sites 'front and back'. So? Do you believe everything you find ON THE INTERNET?
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/ Read some of the things on this site. Do you believe everything he says? 'They go on to say that it is based on assumptions...' Who cares? They have to provide us with this little thing called EVIDENCE. As long as you don't give us evidence, it doesn't matter what some guy on the internet - home of a million porn sites - says.

And believing in micro-evolution, and not in macro is like believing all the words, but not the whole text.

[Anoikis]

Originally posted by glorfindel87@Sep 18 2004, 09:47 AM

Why does evolution contradict a law of thermodynamics?

I presume you mean newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics

This law assumes a closed system

The earth does not exist in a closed system.
We have the sun.
Thus, this law does not apply
*OD*

more later

[glorfindel87]

No I mean the law that states that everything in the universe naturally runs down (or decays) and therefore the evolving into a better creature/human in evolution contadicts it. Also I didnt see any replies on my other questions. :

[Syron]

I think you questions weren't answered because they were so higly opinionated that they imply some sort of rhetorical answer.

Why are there no transitional forms?

There are transitional lifeforms they simply are so similar to the "ordinary species" that it is hard to distiguish them. If you doug up the bones of all the humans alive today when they are buried you would see how much variation there is in a population that exists at the same time. It is the tiny variations between people alive today that are the intermediary parts, look at 2 isolated groups of humans and you would easily notice differences unfortunately these don't show up well in fossils.

Why does evolution contradict a law of thermodynamics?

It doesn't, as each individual eventually dies and it's energy reverts to the spread out concept from thermodynamics. A new organism is a new system and so the law only applies to individuals not the whole.

Why do evolutionary scientists when they go far back have to add another half billion or so years to the life of the universe because they dont want to confront the question "Where did all those gases and whatnot that 'caused' the 'Big Bang' come from?"

Actually it is not evolutionary scientist that try and determine the age of the universe, thats astronomy and partly geology. These calsulations are made and converted into an age of the universe, what are you talking about when you say that they put the age of the universe back half a billion years, your arguement from here on makes no sense.

When did the universe begin?

The closest estimate so far is around 13.7 billion years as i've stated lots of times now and this is based on astronomical data.

evolving into a better creature/human in evolution contadicts it. Also I didnt see any replies on my other questions. :

creatures don't evolve into better ones, thats a common misconception, they are simply changing to better suit there present environment wich will likely change again at some point.


If you want to talk about answering questions, me and Wild Bill Kelso are still waiting for a response to our posts if you would be so kind since I did to yours.

[fatsheep]

I think you questions weren't answered because they were so higly opinionated that they imply some sort of rhetorical answer.

read this:

http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~woodw...121/ch5_law.htm

energy CANNOT be created or destroyed which means you can't go from a single-celled organism to a human. Natural processes (like evolution) that make better and better organisms to suit their environment is impossible.

My conclusion would be a god that is beyond the system that can create energy.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Originally posted by glorfindel87@Sep 18 2004, 11:55 PM
No I mean the law that states that everything in the universe naturally runs down (or decays) and therefore the evolving into a better creature/human in evolution contadicts it. Also I didnt see any replies on my other questions. :

Well I will attempt to answer a few of these questions

"Why are there no transitional forms?"

The fossil record is far from complete, any fossils we do find are a fluke of nature. With time and luck I am sure transitional species will be discovered (if they havent been already). I am not a paleo-biologist and this is out of my field so I cannot provide a indpeth answer.

"Why do evolutionary scientists when they go far back have to add another half billion or so years to the life of the universe because they dont want to confront the question "Where did all those gases and whatnot that 'caused' the 'Big Bang' come from?"
When did the universe begin?"

Biologists dont investigate the age of the universe, astronomers do
Age of Universe Plenty of time to answer your question.

With regards to thermodynamics. Species do not evolve into a "better" organism, just one adapted to a new environment. The laws of thermodynamics are in regards to the energy transfers used by the organisms metabolic systems to survive. Species change through evolution to take advantage of a changing environement, but thier metabolic structures still have to deal with the same laws. This is why we have the sun to add more energy into the system. I don`t see how evolution is in disagreement with thermodynamics.


Please state why you think evolution is in disagreement with thermodynamics, that way I can see where you are coming from.

[Syron]

Originally posted by fatsheep@Sep 18 2004, 10:24 AM

read this:

http://www.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~woodw...121/ch5_law.htm

energy CANNOT be created or destroyed which means you can't go from a single-celled organism to a human. Natural processes (like evolution) that make better and better organisms to suit their environment is impossible.

My conclusion would be a god that is beyond the system that can create energy.

Perhaps you should read Anoikis's last post. The sun is this systems energy input. There is no point trying to tell me somthing I already know and then trying to skew it so it fits your point of view when it misses such an obvious point.

[TB666]

Originally posted by glorfindel87@Sep 18 2004, 03:47 PM
When did the universe begin?

This is an impossible question to answer.
We don't even know where the universe started.
We could be in the center or we could be in the far edge of the universe.
But this a question that will be impossible to answer since the universe is a pretty big place :p

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Dr Josef Mengele, AKA the angel of death, was indeed a Nazi Doctor at Auschwitz.

[fatsheep]

Perhaps you should read Anoikis's last post. The sun is this systems energy input. There is no point trying to tell me somthing I already know and then trying to skew it so it fits your point of view when it misses such an obvious point.

The energy in the universe is constant. The sun may be this solar system's energy point but it too is running downhill. Energy cannot be created, not by the sun, not by you, and not by any other natural means.

[Syron]

Originally posted by fatsheep@Sep 18 2004, 10:35 AM

The energy in the universe is constant. The sun may be this solar system's energy point but it too is running downhill. Energy cannot be created, not by the sun, not by you, and not by any other natural means.

Your point seems to be going nowhere. When most of the suns energy dies out it will "die" and give out little energy. Considering when the sun does die it will incinerate the earth do you think anything will survive? While the sun provides our thermodynamical system with energy animals can continue on but not after all the souces of energy fade out. You seem to be of the viewpoint that life as we know it will continue forever, that's a big assumption.

You again seem to be saying that organisms are getting better and better, they are only getting better suited to a temporary condition when things change again they will have to again even if this means going backwards. That does not mean every animal that evolves consumes more energy at it's next species. Considering the dinosaurs evolved from smaller animals (smaller animals usually take up a comparatively a lot of energy) this idea is false.

[KingOfTheIsles]

What these guys said. :smile

[*Hannibal*Barca*]

I think its about time someone really defines the second law of thermodynamics.


Read this website and everything will be explained:

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

I just added another explanation from a christian website begging people not to use this as a reason that disproves evolution becuase it gives a bad name to the arguement.

The second law of thermodynamics sometimes seems the cornerstone of the creationist argument. After concluding his discussion on this proven scientific principle, Henry Morris claims that “evolution and the Second Law cannot both be true.”[3] What is the second law of thermodynamics? And how does an evolutionist answer it?


First, a complete explanation of the second law is beyond the scope of this essay, but I will briefly describe it to show the problem. Thermodynamics studies changes (-dynamics) of heat and energy (thermo-). All energy is not created equal. Some forms are more useful than others. For example, gasoline contains chemical energy that can be transformed into motion of a car.



Heat is the energy of random molecular motion, and can be considered the energy with the lowest quality. Heat cannot be readily used to do work. For this reason, other forms of energy are considered “useable” while heat energy is considered wasted. “Work” is what creates order from chaos or can make a car drive uphill. No process is 100 percent efficient. In every reaction, some heat is always produced. For example, a car’s engine heats up because it cannot convert 100 percent of the chemical energy in the gasoline into mechanical energy. Some of the gasoline’s energy is wasted as it dissipates as heat, which increases the random molecular motion of the surroundings. Eventually, all energy dissipates as heat. Even the moving car is eventually stopped and its energy flows out as the heat of friction between the brakes, tires and road.



The second law of thermodynamics states that all energy flow produces more disorder. This disorder, chaos or randomness is measured by a term called entropy. Thus, as entropy increases, disorder increases. Since no process is 100 percent efficient, every process will create some unusable heat. The second law says a process can occur on its own only if it increases the disorder or entropy of the universe.



This creates a potential problem for evolutionary biology. Evolution implies the development of complex life forms from simpler components. If the evolution of life involves a decrease in entropy (i.e. increase in complexity), then it should not occur spontaneously without help, as atheists maintain.


The evolutionist rightly answers by pointing to certain “exceptions” to the rule. You began life as a single, egg that divided many times to produce a complex person. You started simple, but as you grew, the complexity of your body increased on its own. So then at least some natural processes that create order can occur spontaneously, and this does not violate the second law. But how?


Remember that the second law states that every process must increase the entropy of the universe. That last phrase is important. It means that the entropy of a person’s body can decrease, as long as the entropy of the person’s environment increases more. It is analogous to a refrigerator, which can cool down inside, but only at the expense of heating up the rest of the room. Similarly we can increase in complexity as we grow, but only at the expense of heat and disorder of the rest of the world.


Some decreases of entropy can occur in an “open system,” which means the “system” is open to energy input from the outside or from the environment. For example, your refrigerator gets energy from the electrical socket. The useable energy from the outside can replace the energy that was lost as heat, so the organism or machine can still have enough energy to do work and create order. But outside the system, the entropy does increase. This explains how evolution does not violate the second law of the thermodynamics when it claims life evolved on Earth. The Earth is an open system because it has energy coming in from the Sun. So if life evolved on Earth and its order increases, the second law can still be satisfied as long as the order of the Sun decreases more. “The second law requires only that processes increase the entropy of the universe. Open systems can increase their order at the expense of the order of their surroundings.”[4]


Some creationists are frustrated with this “open system” argument, and have responded to it, but their responses are more philosophical than scientific and begin to blur this issue by introducing factors we cannot measure. The creationist Henry Morris maintains that simply having an open system is not enough to get a local increase of order. One must also have a mechanism of converting energy input into useful energy and a program to direct the process of ordering. For example, a baby’s genes provide a program by which the body forms from simpler substances.


However, the second law of thermodynamics does not mention either a “program” or a “mechanism” for energy conversion. While Morris is correct to say that a mechanism, or algorithm, could inject information into the system and thereby reduce entropy, it does not follow from this that such mechanisms are the only ways to decrease entropy locally. For instance, when you dissolve sugar in water, then put it on a windowsill with a string in it, you eventually get “rock candy”—basically a big sugar crystal that has more order than the sugar-water solution. However, this does not introduce much order into the system, and even if it did, it is a perfectly normal natural process that increases entropy in one place to get it in another. Furthermore, some evolutionists have claimed life started by crystals; while this is wrong, what it shows is that there are natural processes out there that possibly reduce entropy locally by nothing more than a commonplace natural process. So we can’t just prove evolution wrong by appealing to entropy.



In fact, the second law itself doesn’t make any statements about what conditions are required to achievelocal ordering at the expense of an increase in total entropy of the universe. It doesn’t say if an “open system” is the only requirement or if there are more. We just know that local ordering is possible by purely natural processes, and does not necessarily contradict the law. This leaves scientists to argue about exactly what must be required to get a local decrease in entropy.



Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics does not prove that evolution is impossible. So please don’t be like some creationists who quote the second law as a conclusive proof that evolution is false. There is no such proof because evolution is not a deductive argument. However, we might be able to argue that the second law shows evolution to be more unlikely. That’s how evolution will eventually come down. As we bring more and more evidence that shows evolution unlikely, the belief in evolution becomes less and less plausible. Eventually, with enough evidence it becomes so ridiculous that only a fool would believe it, even though it is technically still possible.

http://www.christian-truth.org/creation/my...l#_Toc526329356

[Portuguese Rebel]

Originally posted by Corporal_Hicks@Sep 18 2004, 03:33 PM
Dr Josef Mengele, AKA the angel of death, was indeed a Nazi Doctor at Auschwitz.

Man... Get your mengels straight... :

My favourite sentence so far:

I'm afraid not. Evolution is far from proven. There are many solid arguements against evolution. I have tried to present some but I must be incapable of doing so because of my age.

So you are too young to present the arguments because you don't understand them yet you are all so sure that evolution doesn't happen? When i don't know things for sure i don't make extraordinary claims against well established facts. That would be like me, a simple curious person on quantic physics, come out and say "you're all wrong, that stuff is all wrong and i know it, i'm just unable to present my case because i don't know squat about it".

Pretty ridiculous isn't it? But LegionaireX is surely not alone. Many creationists, although older still don't know squat about evolution, but does that keep them from saying it doesn't happen? No, and why not? Simply because it can't since the sheer idea is offensive to them.

Are you going to back this up with any statistics? I'm fairly certain that most theists are creationists.

Most theists being creationists does not invalidate that most supporters of evolution are theists also. You guys are so dam many that there is enough of you to go around. :

For starters, scientists are questioning evolution, but they have been doing that for years.

Scientists question everything daily, it's their job. But you won't find a single article in scientific magazines raising points against evolution by the simple fact that there doesn't seem to be scientific points to raise. Everything seems to fall into place. And that is a dam shame, since i would very much like to be the one to disprove it. Imagine the fame, the glory, the money from TV shows... eeeerrr i digress :

Evolution has been disproven on many of its points

Feel free to fill me in at anytime. You guys always make the same claim but always come up short.

There are however a lot of people CLAIMING to be scientists, who want to prove evolution wrong out of religious reasons.
They might (or might not) have a degree in something, but they dont apply scientific method to their 'studies' so you should not consider them scientists.

A degree doesn't make a scientist, but most of those guys either don't have a degree at all or have degree in such relevant areas as Computer engineering (bwahaha) but specially Theology... The last one would qualify them to clean test tudes and sweep the floor in a lab.

Why does evolution contradict a law of thermodynamics?

Why don't you learn what the second law of thermodynamics mean before you embarass yourself? I admit it is a catchy sentente... "... contradict a law of thermodynamics"... Big word at the end and all :cool

energy CANNOT be created or destroyed which means you can't go from a single-celled organism to a human.

The sheer brightness of this sentence is almost blinding...


EDIT: forgot to put in some funny statistics about my college coleagues (in a biology course)

Supporters of evolution: 99. 03%
Creationists: 0.07% (one guy in 140 and he did not get his degree, i wonder why! He was still a fun guy to be with!)
Theists: 75%
Atheists: 25%
Agnostics: 0%

[ANZAC_JYNX]

I dont really have a true beleif that one is more credible than the other. They all lack the base for being fact, and that is proof. Not one theory here can be stated that it is a fact, there is just as much proof that god did it everything at his whim as there is intact evolutionary lines to put forward.

Someone even stated that gravity is a fact, well, just because a theory hasnt been challenged for a few hundred years doesnt make it any more true than when it was hypothasised. Velocity / mass = weight is a fact, not gravity. IF it turned out that the magnetic attraction between two objects on a molecular level was the reason for acceleration towards the centre of the planet, the fact would stay the same, just the theory around it would differ, but you would hardly go on calling that force gravity, it would be magnetism or something.

If we did a real world experiment, and moved the food source (small aquatic animal) into the shallows, what would happen to the species of predatory fish that depended on it for survival, they would die off, or source another food supply, they would not hold out until a few generations when their offspring could reach the shallows, they would be exstinct a long time before that. What would happen is another animal would become dominant due to the new supply of food. Do a test yourself...get a heap of mice, place their food source out of their reach so they need to stretch out through the cage and see what happens first.

Did their offsprings necks get longer in an effort to surive or did they all die.

Dont get me wrong, Im no creationist either, but it seems more plausable to me that the reason there are no real answers to be found here with all our exstensive researching, is that our development occured off-world, or was manipulated to advance without these missing links. yeah, I know this is where you all say "Greetings earthling" and "Nanoo nanoo" but prove to me that life didnt start somewhere out there and migrated here about 20,000 years ago. If not, then why are we not digging up fossilised remains of thousands of our ancestors in a steady line of evolution. If we can excavate thousands of fossilised reptiles, birds, fish, insects and plants from our past that show steady lines of evolution, why can we not find the same history on ourselves.