Creationism vs. Evolution

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: gallo No it hasn't. It has been observed. Science doesn't prove anything. However, the observation of speciation events is an important piece of evidence that supports the theories of evolution. Also, like I said, creationist acceptance of speciation is fairly recent. It is, after all, macroevolution.

I will admit my ignorance in the exact definition of macro evolution. But how can you say speciation has not been proven? We defined the word, and new species have been made.

Quote by: gallo Define "kind." I would classify dogs, cats, brown bears and polar bears as the same kind of animal. They are all vertebrates. Moreover, they are all tetrapods, mammals and carnivora. So what is a "kind" and what are the criteria by which we can easily recognize them.

heh, I will admit that I am embarresed by the lack of a concrete definition for "kind". But as you admit, the current taxonomic system was made by man.

Quote by: gallo Right. But the discussion was about examples of speciation. It is by definition, macroevolution. Now imagine that animals that have become separate species today still have an extant lineage 50 million years from now. Do you imagine that they would be the same? If we can make chihuahuas and Great Danes from wolves in a few thousand years, what to you suppose can happen in millions of years?

Thats a very poor example. That just shows that change can occur without even speciation occuring. Plus, that it doesn't even always take the time dictated by evolution, since we can achieve vastly different breeds of dog in a generation or two.

Quote by: gallo Just an unsupported assertion that has been shown to be incorrect. Suppose there is a witnessed case of evolution that is caused by a corruption in the DNA. Now suppose that we witness a change that is the exact reversal of the first. Is this also a corruption?

You are clearly more knowledgeable in this area, so I won't challenge that.

Quote by: gallo Cladistics. Birds are still dinosaurs and archosaurs. Besides, taxonomy is a device invented by humans. People invented the classifications that put birds and dinosaurs into different groups.

Then would you argue that we all are still monera?

Quote by: gallo Sure we do. It's called the fossil record. Even more documentation is furnished by DNA sequencing. From that we learn that birds are more closely related to crocodilians than to other reptiles. Studies of physiology have shown relationships between various lineages of animals. There is lots and lots of evidence for the common ancestry of life. There is even the fact that lobster DNA and human DNA use exactly the same code to represent precisely the same amino acids. The fact is that there are lots of transitional species. And they were completely separate animals that are now extinct. What exactly do you think that a transitional is? But the point is that if birds are descended from theropod dinosaurs we should be able to find examples in the fossil record with some characteristics of both. Guess what. We do. I think you are trying to prove creationism true because you continue to spout creationist babble and you read creationist literature and pretend that you are learning science. And evolution is the only valid possibility since all others have been shown to be false. If that isn't true, why is it that you say that creationists accept evolution?

You know what I meant by seperate species. The so called transitions do not necessarily indicate a common ancestry. Perhaps I have been misinformed, but I was always told the number discovered is comparitively few to the number that should exist...
Lastly, how can creationism possibly be shown to be FALSE? Without proving that God does not exist that is.

[gallo]

Quote by: LetThereBe I will admit my ignorance in the exact definition of macro evolution.

Microevolution is evolution that is below the level of species. Macroevolution is evolution that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups, as in new species.

Quote by: LetThereBe But how can you say speciation has not been proven?

Because it is an observational fact.

Quote by: LetThereBe We defined the word, and new species have been made.

Actually, we have several definitions of the word. I have been using the most common because it is the one that is most applicable to our discussion. It was originally stated by Ernst Mayr and is known as the biological species concept (BSC). A species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding organisms. That doesn't cover it all since we know of reproductively isolated populations (some that even fit the morphological species concept) that can interbreed (and will do so if given the opportunity). We would use a different definition if we were paleontologists, and of course, yet another if we were discussing asexually reproducing microbes.

Quote by: LetThereBe heh, I will admit that I am embarresed by the lack of a concrete definition for "kind". But as you admit, the current taxonomic system was made by man.

Why would you be embarrassed if you weren't a creationist. A "kind" is supposedly some god-defined group that is unchanging.

Quote by: LetThereBe Thats a very poor example. That just shows that change can occur without even speciation occuring. Plus, that it doesn't even always take the time dictated by evolution, since we can achieve vastly different breeds of dog in a generation or two.

Actually, what we know as "dogs" are more than one species, artificially developed. For example, Great Danes and chihuahuas cannot reproduce, even through artificial insemination. The embryos are not viable. So by almost any definition of species you want to use, speciation has occurred. We just happen to know the history.

Quote by: LetThereBe You are clearly more knowledgeable in this area, so I won't challenge that.

But that is what Sarfati is saying. Essentially, he just defines evolution out of existance by making definitions that conform to his wishes, but not reality.

Quote by: LetThereBe Then would you argue that we all are still monera?

I don't think that "monera" is used as a cladistic node. Would you disagree that we are amniotes, tetrapods, vertebrates, mammals, hominids, and humans?

Quote by: LetThereBe You know what I meant by seperate species. The so called transitions do not necessarily indicate a common ancestry. Perhaps I have been misinformed, but I was always told the number discovered is comparitively few to the number that should exist...

Yes. You have been misinformed. Creationists claim that there should be transitionals between every fossil - they ask for the transitional between dinosaurs and birds, and when they are shown some, they ask for transitionals to fill the two gaps, followed by asking for transitionals to fill the four gaps, 8 gaps, etc.

Transitional does not necessarily mean ancestry. We are talking about grand lineages of living organisms. Evolution is not like a ladder where one species turns into another. It is more like a bush, like the lingeages of sea gulls, where there are several species at various places in the world - species because they don't look alike and they are reproductively isolated. But most adjacent species of Larus can interbreed and occasionally do. But we know for a fact that the extremes of a single population that circles the globe have become separate species. There have even been several species of hominid that lived at the same time in the past.

Quote by: LetThereBe Lastly, how can creationism possibly be shown to be FALSE? Without proving that God does not exist that is.

Creationism is the assertion that the earth was created as the Bible says. That was shown to be false some hundreds of years ago. Also, the global flood, that is part of creationism was shown to be false beyond doubt. In fact, creationism grew from the literal reading of the Bible by Seventh Day Adventists. Most modern creationists don't like to admit that. They believe that it has always been part of christianity rather then having been invented in the 1920s through the 1960s.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Yet again you demonstrate you ignorance of thermodynamics. No its not. Again you are confusing classical thermodynamics with statistical mechanics. I see you are still ducking the little test I linked for you. It seems that you can't answer a few 1st semester questions (about 5th week) in introductory thermodynamics. Show us that you know enough about thermodynamics to discuss it. Take the Thermodynamics Test. I guess you find it preferable to show how much you don't know about it rather than to demonstrate your competence. You just keep ducking the question.

I aint taking any tests that arent required by my college. I have enough trouble studying for those. how about you drop your test and read some websites. I am not confusing statistical thermodynamics with the classical version. I know exactly which one I am talking about, and either way, you can argue that evolution breaks both, as I have seen my science professor do.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 I aint taking any tests that arent required by my college. I have enough trouble studying for those.

As I thought. You lack the knowledge

Quote by: dthmstr254 how about you drop your test and read some websites.

And exactly how would reading creationist babble do any good? How about you actually learn what thermodynamics is? How about you read a book and learn something? When you can answer the test we can proceed. You can start with THIS SITE on the 2nd law.

Quote by: dthmstr254 I am not confusing statistical thermodynamics with the classical version. I know exactly which one I am talking about,

Not only did you confuse them, you mixed them.

Define disorder. Why is a freezing ice cube not a violation of the 2nd law since it is a reduction in entropy? Define entropy.

Quote by: dthmstr254 and either way, you can argue that evolution breaks both, as I have seen my science professor do.

Either you didn't understand or your professor is incompetent. I would like to hear how evolution "breaks" the laws of thermodynamics. Probably you think you have already answered that but I have already explained why you are wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned what your were talking about instead of being a parrot and repeating what others tell you to say?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo As I thought. You lack the knowledge And exactly how would reading creationist babble do any good? How about you actually learn what thermodynamics is? How about you read a book and learn something? When you can answer the test we can proceed. You can start with THIS SITE on the 2nd law. Not only did you confuse them, you mixed them. Define disorder. Why is a freezing ice cube not a violation of the 2nd law since it is a reduction in entropy? Define entropy. Either you didn't understand or your professor is incompetent. I would like to hear how evolution "breaks" the laws of thermodynamics. Probably you think you have already answered that but I have already explained why you are wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually learned what your were talking about instead of being a parrot and repeating what others tell you to say?

because freezing the water into ice causes something else in the system to heat up, IE the metal coils on the back of most freezers. the problem with evolution is, the universe is always improving, showing no areas of unimprovement, thus causing a drop in entropy with nowhere for the entropy to go. if you could please explain where all the entropy goes, then we can move on. no i will not take your test and you might as well just shut up about it.

[gallo]

Quote by: dthmstr254 because freezing the water into ice causes something else in the system to heat up, IE the metal coils on the back of most freezers.

Really? But what if my ice cube tray isn't in the freezer? What if it's sitting just out side my back door?

Quote by: dthmstr254 the problem with evolution is, the universe is always improving, showing no areas of unimprovement,

What does the universe have to do with evolution? What do you mean by "improving?" What do you mean by "unimprovement?" Who gave you this load of horse puckey and how could you possibly be ignorant enough to believe it?

Quote by: dthmstr254 thus causing a drop in entropy with nowhere for the entropy to go.

What makes you think that entropy is something that has to go someplace. How does "improvement" or "unimprovement" affect entropy?

Quote by: dthmstr254 if you could please explain where all the entropy goes, then we can move on.

Entropy measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes, at a specific temperature.

If I freeze water, the entropy of the water decreases because heat is dispersed to the surrounding air. The entropy of the air increases.

Perhaps you can tell me where the entropy goes when an embryo grows into a baby. Wouldn't you call that an area of improvement? Where did the entropy go?

Quote by: dthmstr254 no i will not take your test and you might as well just shut up about it.

I know. You're afraid because it will make it quite apparent that you are talking about things of which you know nothing. Someone has duped you and you are just being a parrot, repeating without understanding.

[Jack]

because freezing the water into ice causes something else in the system to heat up, IE the metal coils on the back of most freezers.

When a river freezes in the Winter, what exactly is heating up?

[gallo]

Quote by: Isherwood When a river freezes in the Winter, what exactly is heating up?

One hopes that you actually know the answer to that.

It's like the idea that creationists have that when the rain fell from the vapor canopy it cooled the earth to the extent that the poles froze and a brief ice age followed. But creationists don't seem to have an understanding of thermodynamics. When the vapor canopy condensed to water, assuming that it contained enough to flood the earth, it would have released enough latent heat to raise the temperature of the atmosphere above the boiling point.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo One hopes that you actually know the answer to that. It's like the idea that creationists have that when the rain fell from the vapor canopy it cooled the earth to the extent that the poles froze and a brief ice age followed. But creationists don't seem to have an understanding of thermodynamics. When the vapor canopy condensed to water, assuming that it contained enough to flood the earth, it would have released enough latent heat to raise the temperature of the atmosphere above the boiling point.

no, if you were to read Exploring God's Creation Through Physics, you would understand that we believe that the canopy, since it would have had to contain only half to three quarters of what was required to do such a feat with just the canopy, would have been thick enough to diffuse the heat sent from the sun across the entire world. you have to understand that water didnt just come from the sky, it also came from the ground according to the Bible. this water coming from the ground could have been caused by something as simple as an earthquake causing some underground river caves to cave in, making it look like the water "came forth from the ground" as the Bible says.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood When a river freezes in the Winter, what exactly is heating up?

remember that on the other hemisphere, it is summer when we have winter. they heat up, we cool down. perfectly sound according to thermodynamics.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: gallo Really? But what if my ice cube tray isn't in the freezer? What if it's sitting just out side my back door?

read my response to Isherwood.

What does the universe have to do with evolution? What do you mean by "improving?" What do you mean by "unimprovement?" Who gave you this load of horse puckey and how could you possibly be ignorant enough to believe it?

improvement by evolution is the spontaneous mutation of a simple lifeform into a more complex lifeform, IE a protozoa into a multicelled organism. since we are all the way back to the first stage in what you call "the origin of life", what did the protozoa lose in order to become the next step in the evolutionary chain? in order to improve in one area, it has to lose something in another area, thus "unimprove"

What makes you think that entropy is something that has to go someplace. How does "improvement" or "unimprovement" affect entropy?

by "improvement" and "unimprovement" I mean the gain or loss of order.

Entropy measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes, at a specific temperature.

not according to your encyclopedia it doesn't. Wikpedia has this definition:

In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, the thermodynamic entropy (or simply the entropy) S is a measure of the internal disorder present in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium; or, equivalently, the number of possible internal configurations available to the system.

this has nothing to do with the definition you gave.

If I freeze water, the entropy of the water decreases because heat is dispersed to the surrounding air. The entropy of the air increases.

I havent argued that at all.

Perhaps you can tell me where the entropy goes when an embryo grows into a baby. Wouldn't you call that an area of improvement? Where did the entropy go?

what about the mother. when a woman bears child, certain problems start arising within the mother's system, IE morning sickness, mood swings, hormonal activity, etc. all are caused by the high amount of entropy that is required to be taken by the system in order to produce a living child. ask any mother, and they will tell you, the child is getting the easy part of the bargain.

I know. You're afraid because it will make it quite apparent that you are talking about things of which you know nothing. Someone has duped you and you are just being a parrot, repeating without understanding.

if you can argue with Dr Jay L. Wile, you can then say someone has duped me. until then, sea reservado sobre la prueba.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: dthmstr254 improvement by evolution is the spontaneous mutation of a simple lifeform into a more complex lifeform, IE a protozoa into a multicelled organism. since we are all the way back to the first stage in what you call "the origin of life", what did the protozoa lose in order to become the next step in the evolutionary chain? in order to improve in one area, it has to lose something in another area, thus "unimprove"

Says who? Why does an organism need to lose something inorder to improve? Can't it have something added on?

There is no spontaenous mutation of a simple lifeform into a more complex one. That is magic. That is complete rubbish and is an urban myth perpetuated by people without understanding Evolution.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: dthmstr254 remember that on the other hemisphere, it is summer when we have winter. they heat up, we cool down. perfectly sound according to thermodynamics.

Erm, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Are you saying that during our Winter that energy is transferred to the opposite side so it heats up? Which universe do you live?

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Pooeypants Erm, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Are you saying that during our Winter that energy is transferred to the opposite side so it heats up? Which universe do you live?

I am saying that entropy does not decrease in the earth because it is rising in the southern hemisphere while the northern hemisphere is cooling. and, if you add in global warming, you get a rise in entropy instead of a drop in total entropy.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Pooeypants Says who? Why does an organism need to lose something inorder to improve? Can't it have something added on? There is no spontaenous mutation of a simple lifeform into a more complex one. That is magic. That is complete rubbish and is an urban myth perpetuated by people without understanding Evolution.

then what is the truth for the protozoa? what did it turn into and what perpetuated this mutation? please explain it to those of us who have not earned doctorates in quantum physics. notice that every step in the supposed chain of human evolution. we lost the tail and several other parts of the body to improve in other areas. what if you are going to apply this to one part of the chain, you must apply it to the other.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 I am saying that entropy does not decrease in the earth because it is rising in the southern hemisphere while the northern hemisphere is cooling. and, if you add in global warming, you get a rise in entropy instead of a drop in total entropy.

OK, so you have demonstrated that you do not know the meaning of the word entropy. Fair enough. It is not an easy concept and tends to be overused and misused by those who understand it least.

Entropy

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp OK, so you have demonstrated that you do not know the meaning of the word entropy. Fair enough. It is not an easy concept and tends to be overused and misused by those who understand it least. Entropy

In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, the thermodynamic entropy (or simply the entropy) S is a measure of the internal disorder present in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium; or, equivalently, the number of possible internal configurations available to the system.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp OK, so you have demonstrated that you do not know the meaning of the word entropy. Fair enough. It is not an easy concept and tends to be overused and misused by those who understand it least. Entropy

I used the same quote to prove my point. disorder in a heating/cooling system is measured best by where the heat is. the hotter a place is, the faster the molecules are moving and thus, the higher the amount of disorder (entropy/S).

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, the thermodynamic entropy (or simply the entropy) S is a measure of the internal disorder present in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium; or, equivalently, the number of possible internal configurations available to the system.

Good for you. You can quote the definition. But do you understand it?

According to the second law of thermodynamics entropy is always increasing. It can never decrease. Whether this has anything whatsoever to do with cosmology is open to debate.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Let's keep in mind that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to Earth in all cases. We are not an isolated system. And so the universe doesn't necessarily have to be one either.