Evolution

[truthreality]

Pray tell, what lessons for real life can we draw from star wars? I love star wars but I don't really look at it as advice for the real world.
Could you provide evidence that the concepts of good and evil exist independently of human thought?

Without illnesses there are no need for doctors. Without the British invasion there is no Gandhi. Without slavery in the United States there is no Martin Luther King Jr. Without ignorance there is no need for scientists. Without theists there is no need for atheists. This is the balance of the world.

[Senor Hoint]

Without illnesses there are no need for doctors. Without the British invasion there is no Gandhi. Without slavery in the United States there is no Martin Luther King Jr. Without ignorance there is no need for scientists. Without theists there is no need for atheists. This is the balance of the world.

So explain how this proves that Star Wars is relevant and that good and evil exist independently of human thought?

[truthreality]

So explain how this proves that Star Wars is relevant and that good and evil exist independently of human thought?

Because Star Wars is a battle between opposites...

[Thanatos]

Naked mole rats, who live in awful cramped conditions not shared by our ancestors and whose cells reliably commit suicide when overcrowded:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/46/19352.long

Random tribe in Ecuador, full of seemingly cancer-proof but rather short humans with a whole different kind of immunity:

http://gizmodo.com/5762524/ecuadoria...mune-to-cancer

There was also some random (normal height) guy who happened to have a simple and elegant way to make the immune system recognize and destroy cancer before it got a chance in his blood and that should have ended it, but the guy was a selfish prick and sued to stop the research because he wasn't getting any money from it. Not sure there's a link for that one anywhere on the internet.

Evolution is lazy. If a problem doesn't kill you very often, it doesn't fix it. Evolution could have fixed a lot of things that sometimes kill you in old age, but it didn't. Hunter-gatherers generally do not live long enough to die of Alzheimer's. We're strong and fast and reasonably healthy until about 35-40, and after that we're off-warranty and everything starts wearing out at once.

[minorwork]

Simply stating that my logic wrong doesn't make it wrong.

You're absolutely right.

"The laws of science are falsifiable. They are responsible for creation. Therefore design can be falsifiable. Simple logic." ~ truthreality

It is not me that makes it wrong. You're doing that fine on your own. Is each premise in your proposition falsifiable? And the form of your proposition's construction, is it such that true premises directly infer the conclusion? You've major problems there.

Contemplating on what an undesigned universe would look like is a waste of time.

Then give us an example of an undesigned anything then. This is NOT a waste of time if you're trying to distinguish nonsensical propositions from true ones. Science demands tests to see if your premises are true. That is done by crafting tests such that the premise can be falsified. If you can't, then your premise is not necessarily false, but it certainly is not true and is tossed in the pile with the rest of the bullshit that has not even the possibility of being proved false.

Obviously everything in this universe is by design.

Obviously the sun goes round the earth. Do you hear your LOGIC? That's not logic. The method of arriving at truth in this instance is by declaration. I declare it will rain tomorrow and by gosh I'm not wrong all the time, but I'm not right all the time either. But the rain tomorrow declaration is apt to be more true than your, "...everything in this universe is by design." No way can your statement be falsified, but the truth about it raining tomorrow is easily verified or invalidated by our senses. that is just how lame your logic is.

If your statement is so obvious, it should be equally obvious when the universe is NOT designed. Else how do you prove that you are even talking about anything real? You're not. There is no logic in your proposition only the illusion of your understanding.

So many variables have to be intact and cooperative in order for this universe to exist as it is. Such design does not come about randomly. If you do not want to see the universe as designed that's fine. Such a personal opinion that stems from dogma but don't say there is no evidence for design in this universe because that is clearly false.

To what do you attribute your great understanding of propositional logic and the craft of constructing WFFs (Well Formed Formula)? A designer? In what state of inebriation was this designer when he gave you a passing grade in logic?

You give this debate the flavor of a competitive struggle between whether Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter is the universe you'd live in and choosing one, accuse the opponent of being dogmatic.

Come the day that I see ID the most productive way of seeing the universe that satisfies scientific methods of demanding a theory capable of being falsified and that ID escapes being falsified, then I'll go to the plate and help in your defense of it. But as it stands now, your creation can't even be tested since there is nothing in your designed universe capable of showing any part, subgroup, or whole that is not designed. Just what have you accomplished by seeing designed delusion? What's the advantage for me in believing ID?

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Right but I never once differentiated between high entropy and high order. Carbon tried to. This unequivocally untrue.

Nor did I. I stated that the laws of the universe, as a whole, cause a net increase in entropy. That is all.

I’ll grant that I use a colloquial use of the term. Maybe because you said this:

Anyways according the second law of thermodynamics there is a tendency for systems to go form order to disorder.

After all, I have to bring the level of discourse down to your level or you won’t understand a thing that’s being said.

"Cancer, in other words, re-creates within our own bodies the evolutionary process that enables animals to adapt to their environment. At the level of organisms, natural selection operates when genetic mutations cause some organisms to have more reproductive success than others; the mutations get “selected” in the sense that they persist and become more common in future generations.

From your source:

He does rightly point out, however, that natural selection doesn't care what happens to us when we're old. It favors only for those genes that affect our ability to reproduce.

Come on... I know you read that, because you quoted the sentence right before it.

Cancer cells generally have to have a number of mutations before becoming cancerous. Mutations that up regulate or down regulate various genes (and thus proteins) responsible for cellular growth and signalling, as well as down regulating pro-apoptotic cellular processes.

In other words, one of those mutations - like that in hereditary breast cancers (http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/genetics.jsp) - is not sufficient to cause cancer. It raises the risk factor for cancer, essentially by meaning that you need one less mutation to get cancer, but otherwise does not confer a survival or reproductive disadvantage. Hence, there's no significant selective pressure against such mutations (much like there's not significant selective pressure for other hereditary factors that tend to affect people in old age).

So, mutations to oncogenes can be passed on.

But mutations to oncogenes are not cancer. Cancer is a disease involving unregulated cell growth. Cancer serves no evolutionary purpose. Again, you could have correctly noted that mutations serve an evolutionary purpose. Cancer does not.

And I know you're capable of admitting that you're wrong. Well, kinda...

I have used the probability calculations for only one claim: that life could not arise by chance. That's it. One claim. Not "claims". One claim. I understand those calculations were flawed which is why I am not using them anymore. Scientists make mistakes often.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Nor did I. I stated that the laws of the universe, as a whole, cause a net increase in entropy. That is all.

I’ll grant that I use a colloquial use of the term. Maybe because you said this:


After all, I have to bring the level of discourse down to your level or you won’t understand a thing that’s being said.



From your source:


Come on... I know you read that, because you quoted the sentence right before it.

Cancer cells generally have to have a number of mutations before becoming cancerous. Mutations that up regulate or down regulate various genes (and thus proteins) responsible for cellular growth and signalling, as well as down regulating pro-apoptotic cellular processes.

In other words, one of those mutations - like that in hereditary breast cancers (http://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/genetics.jsp) - is not sufficient to cause cancer. It raises the risk factor for cancer, essentially by meaning that you need one less mutation to get cancer, but otherwise does not confer a survival or reproductive disadvantage. Hence, there's no significant selective pressure against such mutations (much like there's not significant selective pressure for other hereditary factors that tend to affect people in old age).

So, mutations to oncogenes can be passed on.

But mutations to oncogenes are not cancer. Cancer is a disease involving unregulated cell growth. Cancer serves no evolutionary purpose. Again, you could have correctly noted that mutations serve an evolutionary purpose. Cancer does not.

And I know you're capable of admitting that you're wrong. Well, kinda...

Dont forget that he isnt wrong until you are.

I will admit I am wrong once you admit you were wrong about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Oh and don't try to back track because I will quote exactly what you said.

[truthreality]

Nor did I. I stated that the laws of the universe, as a whole, cause a net increase in entropy. That is all.

Here is verbatim what you said:

Actually, it's more that the laws of the universe are what keep the universe moving towards disorder.

Except that’s not really true. The early universe was in a lower entropy state than today. All you’re talking about is local order – and more to the point, defining “order,” as “that which is good for potential life,” rather than by any metric which is meaningful in the context of entropy.

You were wrong. You tried to say that the second law of thermodynamics state that when there is "local order" there is disorder somewhere else. This is unequivocally untrue.

P.S. I am quite OK in admitting I am wrong. I was wrong about the probability calculations. You on the other hand have an issue doing so.

[Senor Hoint]

truth....are you really trying to argue the point that the total amount of entropy in the universe is constantly increasing?

[truthreality]

truth....are you really trying to argue the point that the total amount of entropy in the universe is constantly increasing?

No. I am arguing that entropy is not disorder. This is a fact. The second law of thermodynamics states entropy is increasing not disorder is increasing. Entropy is not disorder.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

You were wrong. You tried to say that the second law of thermodynamics state that when there is "local order" there is disorder somewhere else. This is unequivocally untrue.

If I take what you just said literally, then of course I’m right. Whether or not an ice cube is locally ordered does not disprove that an interstellar cloud of gas is “disordered.” Or more to the point, since a net increase in entropy is always dictated by the second law of thermodynamics, the "order," imposed by ice freezing (that is - water in going from liquid to solid decreases in entropy) is more than compensated for by the attendant increase in entropy in the surroundings.

However, let’s take each quoted statement independently.

Actually, it's more that the laws of the universe are what keep the universe moving towards disorder.

So you’d disagree that there’s a continual increase in entropy for the universe as a whole? Well done, sir, you win a Nobel.

Now, I’d even make the argument that star formation is a fundamentally entropy-increasing process. If one considers matter as a series of states – wherein each “state,” is defined by four variables: (1) The number of nucleides in the atomic nucleus; (2) the number of attached electrons belonging to the atom, (3) the phase of the matter in question, and (4) the relative order (in terms of space between atoms/molecules, orientation relative to one another, etc.) – then the process of star formation and fusion is, I would say, unquestionably a process which increases entropy. It increases the number of states available for matter (by fusing hydrogen into helium, etc. etc.); changes the number of attached electrons (although electrons in stars are generally not associated with one specific nuclei – damned heat); doesn’t necessarily affect the phase (in that stars are made of plasma) until after the star dies; and atoms are generally not in any particular ordered conformation or three dimensional arrangement. Contrast that with what you have in an interstellar cloud of hydrogen before the star forms (wherein only one “state,” is freely available) and the formation of a star is, again I would say, entropically favorable.

See, by way of corroboration:
http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2009/09...d-entropy.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4744...nt_archive.pdf

So, my statement that the laws of the universe – including (for example) gravity – move the universe towards greater entropy is absolutely true. Now, was I technically incorrect in defining “entropy,” as “disorder,”? Sure. But again – I used the colloquial definition you used first. If you want to call me on such a tiny technicality, fine – I was wrong. But you were too – and you were first.

Except that’s not really true. The early universe was in a lower entropy state than today. All you’re talking about is local order – and more to the point,
defining “order,” as “that which is good for potential life,” rather than by any metric which is meaningful in the context of entropy.

I disagreed with your definition of entropy. And I stated that the early universe – shortly after the big bang – was in a lower entropy state than it currently is. How, exactly, is that statement wrong?
http://machineslikeus.com/news/big-b...thermodynamics

P.S. I am quite OK in admitting I am wrong. I was wrong about the probability calculations. You on the other hand have an issue doing so.

None at all... as soon as I'm actually wrong. Let me know when that happens?

[truthreality]

If I take what you just said literally, then of course I’m right. Whether or not an ice cube is locally ordered does not disprove that an interstellar cloud of gas is “disordered.” Or more to the point, since a net increase in entropy is always dictated by the second law of thermodynamics, the "order," imposed by ice freezing (that is - water in going from liquid to solid decreases in entropy) is more than compensated for by the attendant increase in entropy in the surroundings.

However, let’s take each quoted statement independently.


So you’d disagree that there’s a continual increase in entropy for the universe as a whole? Well done, sir, you win a Nobel.

Now, I’d even make the argument that star formation is a fundamentally entropy-increasing process. If one considers matter as a series of states – wherein each “state,” is defined by four variables: (1) The number of nucleides in the atomic nucleus; (2) the number of attached electrons belonging to the atom, (3) the phase of the matter in question, and (4) the relative order (in terms of space between atoms/molecules, orientation relative to one another, etc.) – then the process of star formation and fusion is, I would say, unquestionably a process which increases entropy. It increases the number of states available for matter (by fusing hydrogen into helium, etc. etc.); changes the number of attached electrons (although electrons in stars are generally not associated with one specific nuclei – damned heat); doesn’t necessarily affect the phase (in that stars are made of plasma) until after the star dies; and atoms are generally not in any particular ordered conformation or three dimensional arrangement. Contrast that with what you have in an interstellar cloud of hydrogen before the star forms (wherein only one “state,” is freely available) and the formation of a star is, again I would say, entropically favorable.

See, by way of corroboration:
http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2009/09...d-entropy.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4744...nt_archive.pdf

So, my statement that the laws of the universe – including (for example) gravity – move the universe towards greater entropy is absolutely true. Now, was I technically incorrect in defining “entropy,” as “disorder,”? Sure. But again – I used the colloquial definition you used first. If you want to call me on such a tiny technicality, fine – I was wrong. But you were too – and you were first.



I disagreed with your definition of entropy. And I stated that the early universe – shortly after the big bang – was in a lower entropy state than it currently is. How, exactly, is that statement wrong?
http://machineslikeus.com/news/big-b...thermodynamics



None at all... as soon as I'm actually wrong. Let me know when that happens?

It's funny to watch you backtrack when we both know you fucked up big time in defining entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. You blatantly made the mistake that a high school student would make when defining entropy. If I hadn't pointed out your flaw you would have continued to incorrectly define entropy. It's not a small mistake to define entropy as disorder. It makes a big difference. I will show you this and some other incorrect statements you made when I have more time. Ok?