- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PenguinYou have pointed out examples of variations within a kind. Big deal. The fact that you have bulldogs and great danes proves nothing. They are all still dogs.
I am aware that this is a huge cut 'n' paste but hell, the same question keeps being posted so why not just quote the same answer...
The appearance of bacteria with enzymes that can digest nylon oligomers, a completely artificial polymer that did not exist on Earth until a few decades ago, is a clear example of evolution in action.
As biologists use th ...[text shortened]... aulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).
Is that enough to be going on with?
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by amannionMicroevoltion has been observed. Variations within a kind proves nothing.
DJ, get your hand off it once in a while.
Ooh dazzle us all with big words like microevolution and macroevolution!
They mean exactly the same thing. Evolution has been observed. If you want to deny this plain fact, fine. But stop wasting our time with your drivel.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzDo you mean to say that no intelligent mechanism is present in the chloroplast during photosynthesis, when a localised decrease in entropy takes place?
Not at all.
The grains of sand on a beach can be sorted due to wave action. No "intelligence" there. Likewise, I do not subscribe to your notion that the genetic regulation of the chloroplast is in any way "intelligent".
Of course, feel free to continue with the chloroplast point, as a chloroplast biochemist I'm interested to hear your conjecture.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis is very well understood.
So you honestly believe that the stars were formed by the big bang?
Would you care for starters to explain how you think star formation takes place?
Hydrogen was formed during the big bang. Localised clumps condensed by the action of gravity and, once a critical mass / gravitational pull, ignition occurred, and nuclear fusion proceeded. This is the basis for nucleosynthesis, and is very well established and empirically supported.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by buffalobillDude. I really don't have the time, and yes I had a week to hand in 60 assignments.
Please explain it to me so that I can understand how thermodynamics applies to biology.
To be honest, reading this thread I'm finding it hard to believe that you're a 4th year. How many to go?
Or that you've got 60 assignments to hand in, in a week.
I would recommend this book though:
"Thermodynamics in Biology"
http://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Biology-Enrico-Di-Cera/dp/0195123271
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't believe it's "don't have the time", probably more of "don't have a clue".
Dude. I really don't have the time, and yes I had a week to hand in 60 assignments.
I would recommend this book though:
"Thermodynamics in Biology"
http://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Biology-Enrico-Di-Cera/dp/0195123271
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI agree, he starts this thread, then refuses to answer any direct questions or actually get to the point, and tries to steer us off on things like how stars are created and how chloroplasts work, both of which are very well understood (by everyone except him apparently), and refuses to actually address the issues or even answer all the holes we poke in his arguments, he just ignores them and tries to change the topic. Also, I've never met a physics major who doesn't understand how stars form or that hydrogen didn't exist at the big bang or that chemical evolution is not the same thing Darwin was talking about.
I don't believe it's "don't have the time", probably more of "don't have a clue".
dj2becker, the question still remains and you are yet to even try to answer it.
Does abiogenesis violate the second law of thermodynamics and why?
If a scientist placed a particular mix of chemicals (but no living entity) in a container and stirred / applied heat or whatever other process he might choose, and a new life form resulted, would the second law of thermodynamics have been violated? If the result was only self replicating molecules, would the second law of thermodynamics have been violated?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by buffalobillI'm also coming in a bit late here but can someone explain to me why the 2nd law should apply to evolution or the abiogenesis hypothesis?
I'm also coming in a bit late here but can someone explain to me why the 2nd law should apply to evolution or the abiogenesis hypothesis?
Surely it has to do with the transfer of energy (as in thermo-) in a closed system. It is often used to show that it is impossible to create a perpetual motion machine. But surely it only describes physics at a certai ...[text shortened]... he origin (and end) of the universe needs to be understood - not with molecular physics.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.
* Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), p. 18.
Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe.
Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time.4
R.B. Lindsay, "Physics - To What Extent Is It Deterministic?" American Scientist, Vol. 56, No. 2 (1968), pp. 100-111.
Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. To put it simply: In the real world, the long-term overall flow is downhill, not uphill. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.
[Emmett L. Williams, editor, Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), p. 10.]
Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements.
[Sidney W. Fox, "Chemical Origins of Cells - 2," Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 49 (December 6, 1971), p. 46.]
Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.
[Harold L. Armstrong, "Thermodynamics, Energy, Matter, and Form, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2 (September 1978), pp. 119-121, and Vol. 15, No. 3 (December 1978), pp. 167-168, 174.]
However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut according to your very strange definition, plants cannot grow either. Humans cannot be born, and water can't be pumped up hill.
[b]I'm also coming in a bit late here but can someone explain to me why the 2nd law should apply to evolution or the abiogenesis hypothesis?
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over ...[text shortened]... n, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world.[/b]
Of course, all these things can happen, provided the overall entropy of the system goes up (i.e. energy is supplied).
You've still never got past this point.
You've still never even addressed this point.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI was hoping for something original ie in your own words and not a cut and paste quoting people who either ignorantly or wilfully misrepresent evolution theory.
Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing UPWARD, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) says the opposite. The pressure is DOWNWARD, toward simplification and disorder.
Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe ...[text shortened]... lliamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092: Creation Research Society Books, 1981), p. 10.][/i]
Originally posted by dj2beckerRight on cue!
You have pointed out examples of variations within a kind. Big deal. The fact that you have bulldogs and great danes proves nothing. They are all still dogs.
"As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level."
Until you can define what a 'kind' is, which creationists never can, your complaint is meaningless. The only non-arbitrary classification we have is at the species level: organisms from different species cannot interbreed. All the other classifications are purely arbitrary. In fact, even the species one is fuzzy since the loss of reproductive ability during speciation is gradual so we have to decide, fairly arbitrarily, at what point to draw the line. Nature is not that tidy!
In fact, your example of bulldogs and great danes is at the wrong level for your argument: they are both the same species and can interbreed. I have shown you examples at higher levels than that, more analogous to dogs evolving into non-dogs.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThey must have really dumbed down assignments since I was at university.
Dude. I really don't have the time, and yes I had a week to hand in 60 assignments.
I would recommend this book though:
"Thermodynamics in Biology"
http://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Biology-Enrico-Di-Cera/dp/0195123271
I was also hoping that you or someone else could explain to me how thermodynamics applies to biology. A genuine question. Instead I get told to read a book. This is really helpful.