Evolution is a fact!

Originally posted by bbarr
No, you're funny. You're an unintentional parody of every silly creationist that has passed through these forums. You trot out the very same claims (about entropy, for instance, or "problems" with radiometric dating, or transitional fossils), which educated folk here will refute in due course, and you will either ignore or fail to understand these refuta ...[text shortened]... s edit that little snafu out of the thread before you print it off and show it to your students.

Entropy is a universal and irreversible law, this has been commom knowledge for better than 50 years. Sydney Harris, 1984, wrote, "How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take , of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question ..."

Originally posted by Langtree
Entropy is a universal and irreversible law, this has been commom knowledge for better than 50 years. Sydney Harris, 1984, wrote, "How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take , of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question ..."

No, you are flat wrong on this point. Entropy is not a law, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a law, and it only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, so increasing biological complexity is perfectly consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Further, even if the Earth was a closed system, increasing biological complexity would not be ruled out by the 2nd law of thermodynamics if there were compensatory increases in entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you should be ashamed both at your lack of intellectual honesty (or, if you are trying your best, your severely impoverished intellect) and your plan to spread disinformation and confusion amongst those children unfortunate enough to be your students.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, you are flat wrong on this point. Entropy is not a law, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a law, and it only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, so increasing biological complexity is perfectly consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Further, even if the Earth was a closed system, increasing biological complexity would not ...[text shortened]... read disinformation and confusion amongst those children unfortunate enough to be your students.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the law of decreasing available energy. Entropy is the downhill effect, a proven law. Your denial doesn't change that fact. " ... the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolate or not." (Arnold Sommerfeld) Entropy is part of the classical thermodynamic which incoorperates the second law.

Originally posted by Langtree
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the law of decreasing available energy. Entropy is the downhill effect, a proven law. Your denial doesn't change that fact. " ... the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolate or not." (Arnold Sommerfeld) Entropy is part of the classical thermodynamic which incoorperates the second law.

You are so confused about this very simple point that you don't even know when that which you cut and paste is irrelevant to the discussion.

Sommerfeld is talking about the local generation of entropy, which of course cannot be negative. But this point is irrelevant to biological complexity, because biological systems are constantly inundated by usable energy (e.g., sunlight). So, there will always be the generation of entropy on the local level, because some usable energy will be lost in the form of heat during chemical reactions. But this doesn't reduce the total amount of energy available for use for a biological system when that system is constantly inundated by other sources of usable energy. This is why the fact that the Earth is an open system refutes your moronic assertion that entropy precludes evolution.

Further, for your own edification, you should read the following from talkorigins.com:

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Originally posted by Langtree
No. Archaeopteryx is indeed controverial, but it is not the final answer. I'm not troubled by the controversy. I must depart now, but I will do further research on both sides of the issue. I remember, that Fred Hoyle claimed that Archaeopteryx was a hoax.

That would be Fred Hoyle the astro physicist?

Originally posted by Langtree
The pre-cambrian still lacks the transitional forms that should appear sometime before the Cambrian. There are still systematic gaps.
What are the Laws of Thermodynamic? I'll focus on the first and second laws. The first, is the conservation of mass and energy. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed The Second Law, has three important applications, f ...[text shortened]... an open system, Entropy always increases. The Laws of Thermodynamics run contrary to evolution.

Why would you expect to find transitional forms in an extremely sparse fossil record.

Please explain the criterea on which you would judge a 'transitional form'. It seems a vague concept, I may have many examples available but I have to know how you judge.

Just to remind ourselves, you were entirely wrong when you asserted that fossils make a sudden appearance at the base of the Cambrian. How many more 'FACTS' need we debunk until you re-consider?

Originally posted by Langtree
Address what fundalmental question. Evolution is also faith based, more so than creationism, given the facts that support creation. You question doesn't help your argument it actually detracts from it, because you are not basing it on any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Please enlarge on the 'facts' that support creation. I will be pleased to scrutinise tham, dear heart.

Originally posted by Langtree
You ask me to study the subject? That is the advice you need to give some of(if not all) your evolutionary collegues. Some of your bright biologists have made some pretty colossal errors themselves. For example PiltdownMan, Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man. Ernest Haeckel, doctored pictures of embroys to prove human beings went thro ...[text shortened]... e still pathetically weak in your knowledge of evolution. I think you need to hide for awhile.

Nearderthals seem to be a convincing bunch of guys. There's some work on sequencing neandrthal DNA recovered from bones. I've read a little about comparison of sequence data to modern humans, very interesting it is too.

Originally posted by Langtree
You made a serious over sight Frogstomp. In particular, there are modern birds that have teeth. Why don't you take a guess.

Did I miss the answer to this one?

Originally posted by Langtree
Lemonjello, Understand this clearly. Evolution and creation are THEORIES OF ORIGINS. The evidence we have exists in the present, but the actions in the past. Evolution occurs too slowly in any one life time to be documented.
All your evidence in anatomy has not answered the more nagging questions that plague evolution. 1. How does evolution explain th ...[text shortened]... reation are not science, but science is needed to verify the data, to see which side is correct.

Evolution occurs too slowly in any one life time to be documented...

Evolution within virus and bacteria has been well documented.

4. If evolution is true, then defining characteristic of animal and plants should be less distinct. Linnenean(?) system demonstrates that fact.

Why should they be less distinct? I don't understand where the Linnaean system demonstartes they plants and animals should be less distinct.

5. Why are languages becoming less complex. I have studied, (but don't boast expertise,) cunieform, New Testament Greek and both are very complex. English is a very sloppy language.

This is a sloppy assertion, what do you mean? What are your measures? Do you consider every current world language in your assertion?



10. How does evolution explain the special abilities of the woodpecker, bombardier beetle, cleaner fish, archer fish. These are specialized functions that defy evolution.

They are exploiting a niche and have adapted. There may be niches that require even greater specialisation to expoit them and nothing hs eveolved to occupy that niche. Far from defying evolution these specialsts illustrate evolutio.

9. Natural selection only occurs within kinds; take for examples the canine, dogs, wolves, foxes, wombats, hyenas.

Please explain this assertion

Originally posted by Langtree
The ostrich

HAHAHAHAHA

Originally posted by Langtree
Seems like someone is upset. Well, I have a busy day tomorrow. I have to teach Algebra, finish my lesson plans and enjoy my wife. We are in our fifties, and we behave like newly weds WOW, marriage is exciting, thankyou God!!!!!

If your sex life is so good what the hell are you doing posting on here?

You're just boasting. I bet your preparing a jam sandwich as we speak

Originally posted by Langtree
Frogstomp, both evolution and creation are hypothses. You are still avoiding my questions. I once was an evolutionist, you know what made me reconsider my position. When I was in South Korea, I took a class through the University of Maryland. The class and the professor raised more question than answers. I never looked back. I'm making a copy of this ...[text shortened]... ady have permission to give equal time to creationism and evolution. That is a fair education

Its a fair education if you want to raise a nation of dumbass rednecks

Originally posted by Langtree
Try again.

You said ostrich, he provided a quote illustrating your error. You are the one who needs to try again (or admit that you've made another wild assertion based on no facts whatsoever)

Originally posted by Langtree
OOOOH, insults!!!! I did look it up, I was wrong. I misread something in a pamphet, I have, concerning Archaeopteryx. Comparing it with the ostrich.
Well, I just need to be more careful.😳

This comes close to an apology but the bombastic arrogance at the start saves you. Well done