Common Ancestry or Flawed Research?, ZULU wrote:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Even a creationist should be able to understand that.
Here’s a clue for you ZULU, any source that has “evolution fact” in the link....simply won’t be worth a normal person’s time.
I would say even a liberal should be able to understand this but...I’d be lying. ;)
Talk Origins is a site dedicated to deception and lies disguised as truth- they are NOT a reputable scientific site by any means- and htose pointing to it show hteir lack of research and interest in intellectual honesty:
“Q: I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
Talk Origin’s ‘Answer’ A: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolutiongenetic, fossil, anatomical, etc.is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
True Origin’s Response R: Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here. The controversy exists because evolutionthe full-fledged manifestation of evolution (including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution)is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our creators), and dismissing God (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of superstition.
After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance? Hardly! Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution. Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysicin short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts. There is a controversy precisely because of clashing metaphysicsthe same type of conflict that exists when Christian theology comes face-to-face with Islam, Buddhism, or even atheism, to name just a few popular counter-Christian belief systems.
Despite all of this, TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of religion versus scienceemotion versus reason. This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter well enough to know better. However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position. This is deception by omission.”
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
Q: Doesnt evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder.
TO answer A: Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.
True Origin’s Response R: TO is here propagating one of the most odious of all myths in the creation-evolution controversy, this being that the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics is either invalid or has been amply refuted. This is simply not true.
The essential information that TO is either ignorant of (or is concealing from its readers) is that when snowflakes form they do so according to thermodynamic principles that produce patterns (i.e., symmetric crystalline structures) that are far from the asymmetric, far more complex structures required for life. Whats more, symmetric structures occur naturally because thermodynamic equilibrium is a natural state. On the other hand, lifeany lifeis actually a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium; a significant departure that requires large amounts of directed energy to be sustained, according to requirements defined in advance by every organisms genetic code.
Similarly, the example of trees grow and embryos develop is again an oversimplification based on either ignorance on the part of TO, or a willful concealing of the whole truth from their readers. The point is not that organisms grow but how they are able to grow. The typical, shortsighted response is that they are receiving energy from the sunit is an open system and this energy provides the fuel for growth. Recently, Harvards own Ernst Mayr served up precisely this open system explanation in his latest book, What Evolution Is [Basic Books, 2001, page 8]. True, energy is being supplied but the main point is being missed (intentionally?).
Lets take a blow torch to a tree or an embryo, thereby supplying it with plenty of energy, and then lets stand back and watch them grow. Of course, whatll happen is they will be incinerated! Energy is not the key; energy reception, utilization and storage is the key. In other words, there must be a highly sophisticated and fully functional energy management systema system that enables input, conversion, storage and outputif a tree is to grow or an embryo is to develop. This is the crux of the creationist argument involving the second law of thermodynamics and not some easily discarded strawman. Why doesnt TO present the real issue and respond to it? Deception by omission.
“Heres a clue for you ZULU, any source that has evolution fact in the link....simply wont be worth a normal persons time.”
Glad you have such an open mind. It explains your persepctive on biology.
“I would say even a liberal should be able to understand this but...Id be lying. ;)”
NOT a liberal. Read my posts. :(