Creationists accept several components of evolution (variation due to gene mutation, natural selection, adaptive radiation) but only for explaining "microevolution." Evolutionists believe current evidence supports common descent ("macroevolution"😉. Scientific evidence for evolution neither supports nor denies a Creator, and is unable to clarify the origin of life.
"Creation science" is non-professional science directed to lay audiences rather than to scientists with training to scrutinize its arguments. Creationist arguments are absent from the professional literature because creationist standards of scholarship are too low for publication in professional peer-reviewed journals. As an example, scientific evidence for evolution from cross-species protein sequence comparisons is rejected by creationists for invalid reasons (bad data or bad interpretations), though these reasons may convince lay audiences. For more examples see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
Thermodynamics. Creationists claim that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But, LOCAL INCREASES IN ORDER CAN OCCUR SPONTANEOUSLY WITHOUT VIOLATING THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The evolution of life on the thin skin of the earth's biosphere is such a localized increase in order. The creationists' claim that evolution violates the Second Law is invalid in the absence of calculations of entropy changes outside the biosphere. Their claim is an effective debating ploy for audiences untrained in thermodynamics, but the creationists have avoided presenting a detailed quantitative argument suitable for scientists to evaluate. (See the Challenge on the reverse of this page.) This avoidance of critical scientific scrutiny is the tactic of non-professional science. See: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html
Probability, mutation and selection. Creationists argue that the assembly of a complex gene by selection of random sequences is too improbable to explain the origin of genes. The creationists' "straw man" model misrepresents the evolutionist view of the role of randomness and selection. In fact the real evolutionist model (successive selection of small random mutations) is quite plausible, as shown by the biological example of antibody gene mutations. Dr. Gish's rejection of antibody mutations reveals his ignorance. For more on this see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html
Homology. Similar structures in modern species suggest either derivation from a common ancestor (the evolutionist view) or design by a Creator using similar construction plans (the creationist view). But, as in copyright law, shared errors imply copying. Thus the thousands of shared genetic errors (non-functional retroposon DNA sequences like Alus and retroviruses) in common between humans and apes provide convincing evidence for copying from a shared ancestor. For more details see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
Fossils. The genealogic tree based on similarities of modern species is supported by the chronological order of appearance of different groups in the fossil record, providing evidence for evolution. The creationists' alternative explanation of the fossil record (deposition within a year after a great flood) is strongly refuted by the distribution of fossils and by radiometric dating, which indicates rock and fossil deposition occurred over hundreds of millions of years. The creationists' claim that absence of transitional fossils contradicts a prediction of evolution is wrong: (1) It misrepresents the predictions of evolution and (2) denies reasonable examples of transitional fossils. For more, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Conclusion. The real importance of the creation/ evolution debate lies in teaching our science students rigorous standards for evaluating evidence so that they can make wise decisions. In the real world, decisions based on bad science can lead to tragedy. Our students deserve education based on the best professional science.
http://tccsa.tc/articles/evolutionist_view_max.html
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd ol Willy MacPherson has exactly what qualifications to back up this rambling of his?
One of Creationism's favorite canards is that Evolution can't be true because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A full refutation of this moonshine would have an extremely soporific effect on the general reader and could even put a scientist to sleep. Within my understanding of Thermodynamics, I will attempt to explain the argument in as straigh ...[text shortened]... taken literally.
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/MACPHE3.html
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't know, I have no idea who he is. But instead of pulling 'experts' out of the woodwork and justifying your position upon them, rather than the facts of the debate, why don't you try refuting him clearly?
And ol Willy MacPherson has exactly what qualifications to back up this rambling of his?
Should be simple if he's rambling...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanWell as this thread has been directed at the 2nd Law vs the origin of life, and your pal is of the opinion that life did not evolve from non-life, then the obvious question would be how does he explain the origin of life, as that is what this thread is all about...
I don't know, I have no idea who he is. But instead of pulling 'experts' out of the woodwork and justifying your position upon them, rather than the facts of the debate, why don't you try refuting him clearly?
Should be simple if he's rambling...
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm sorry, where exactly does he say anything about the origins life in that article?
Well as this thread has been directed at the 2nd Law vs the origin of life, and your pal is of the opinion that life did not evolve from non-life, then the obvious question would be how does he explain the origin of life, as that is what this thread is all about...
Are you going to refute his position, or accept that evolutionary theory does not have anything to do with the 2nd law?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanHe doesn't say anything about the origin of life. That's my point. If you read this thread you will see that I have been focusing specifically on abiogenesis theory.
I'm sorry, where exactly does he say anything about the origins life in that article?
Are you going to refute his position, or accept that evolutionary theory does not have anything to do with the 2nd law?
Since DJ is insisting on quoting professor Asimov, a personal hero of mine, I'd like to point out that Asimov did not believe in God or creationism, he tended to get very annoyed with psuedoscience and superstition. Although he didn't believe in an afterlife, if he and I are wrong, he'd be rolling in his grave to see his words misused so horribly.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowYou are welcome to point out where I have misused his words. I have only quoted them directly.
Since DJ is insisting on quoting professor Asimov, a personal hero of mine, I'd like to point out that Asimov did not believe in God or creationism, he tended to get very annoyed with psuedoscience and superstition. Although he didn't believe in an afterlife, if he and I are wrong, he'd be rolling in his grave to see his words misused so horribly.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are putting his words into a context he did not mean. He was not trying to give an accurate, scientific definition of the second law, he was trying to write a popularized account for a more general, less educated audience. He oversimplified, so what, that was part of his job almost. Writing simplified science for the masses. Once in a while his words can be taken out of context or too literally. No scientist has used Asimov's populariztion articles as evidence for anything, just a quick overview.
You are welcome to point out where I have misused his words. I have only quoted them directly.
My point in mentioning his own beliefs is that he certainly did not take the second law of thermodynamics to be evidence against evolution, abiogenisis, or any other scientific theory.
He may have gone a bit overboard on metaphor and simplicity, but that is all, he did not mean that as a definition to be used in any sort of debate or formal context, so please don't. Find an accepted definition of the second law.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat's a refusal to answer the question you have about your own hypothesis? How, please tell me, an I supposed to answer a question about your idea, when I (a) don't know what you're talking about, and (b) think you are talking rubbish?
That is a nice way of avoiding the question. With that impressive goose-step in your armory, I would say that you should immediately replace Dan Carter in Saders starting line-up for the rest of the Super 14.
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo what?
Professor Isaac Asimov:
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. ...[text shortened]... the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
Ring a bell?
"No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."
"Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. Entropy is unavailable energy. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so (because energy is conserved) its complement, entropy, can never decrease."
"The algebraic sum of all the transformations occurring in a cyclical process can only be positive, or, as an extreme case, equal to nothing."
"If thermodynamic work is to be done at a finite rate, free energy must be expended."
"The integral of the differential of a quantity of heat divided by temperature must be greater than or equal to zero for every cyclical process which is in any way possible"
"The differences in intensive thermodynamic quantities such as temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out as time goes by, unless there is an outside influence which works to maintain the differences. The end point of this evening-out process is called equilibrium, and as the system moves toward equilibrium, the entropy of the system increases, becoming a maximum at equilibrium."
"Entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations that are capable of yielding the observed macroscopic description of the thermodynamic system: S=kB ln(omega) kB is Boltzmann's Constant, omega is the number of microstates corresponding to the observed thermodynamic macrostate."
I think these are some decent, not overly complicated definitions of the second law.
Any other suggestions people?
If not, I've now defined it, explain, using this or another "accepted" definition how abiogenesis violates the second law.
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. ”
--Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of The Physical World (1927)
Explain why the majority of scientists should collapse in humiliation, and why we had to wait for people with very little knowledge of thermodynamics, physics, or chemistry to point this out.
Now I feel really ignorant! I just read the last 8 pages. Why didn't you guys tell me you were all geniuses? I just wasted the last 3 months of my life trying to defend the faith, and here you all are knowing it all already.
I'm glad spring is here again. I've got 3 acres of garden to work this season, and I don't have time for this endless and unresolvable debate.