Posted on 09/24/2013 8:01:13 AM PDT by fishtank
****Who is “they”, and where do “they” say this?****
This is getting a little tedious.....
virtually every public high school biology book in the country, the National Academy of Science, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers, Stephen Hawking, etc. etc. etc.
You’re either being facetious, you’re not paying attention or you just want to pull my chain.
Why? Because I won't conflate evolution and abiogenesis? At worst it's dishonest. At best it's just downright lazy.
Science are hard. Dogma is easy.
He’s been pulling chains on these types of theads for a very long time now...
Right - so how come evolution believers simply move the goal posts everytime some fact comes along to disprove another major piece of evolution?
For instance, when Mary Schwitzer found soft tissue in a T-Rex the evolution followers simply said there must be something we don’t understand about the decay rates.
No other branch of science has nearly as much fraud nor moving of the goal-posts - priceless!
Dogma is easier. You start with the conclusion and it never changes regardless what the evidence says.
Precisely.
From Smithsonian:
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Please, even the scientist who made the discovery doesn't want her results to be so misused. She made her discovery when she dissolved bone in acid, something that isn't normally done due to the rarity of the specimens. What was left was some organic matter trapped inside the bone that may have once been soft tissue but had become fossilized along with the bone itself. In simple terms, the soft tissues also fossilized which was not thought to happen.
“Dogma is easier. You start with the conclusion and it never changes regardless what the evidence says.”
Remind me again, where is all the evidence that supports the conclusion Darwin started with (that all life has a common ancestor)?
Oh, and remember you can’t simply list similarities, since those are explicable by other mechanisms besides common ancestry.
I've only seen some of it in museums. I honestly have no idea where all of it is or if there is even a comprehensive list in existence. Sorry.
Nope that’s decided through peer review and repeated experimentation. I didn’t make the scientific heirarchy, I just mention it. Laws have been proven inviolate over time. Theories continue to evolve as they cannot be inherently proven or are shaped by additional data over time.
Here I’ll throw up some Wikipedia to support it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
“A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like “Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure” are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm’s law only applies to linear networks, Newton’s law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli’s principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke’s law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.
Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; for example, the Law of Conservation of Energy can be written as , where E is the total amount of energy in the universe. Similarly, the First Law of Thermodynamics can be written as .
The term “scientific law” is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[2] An example of a scientific law in social sciences is Zipf’s law.
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.”
I agree that sunlight is an outside source of energy to the earth. Gravitational tides are another.
I disagree that random energy focused on random atoms and/or molecules alone is sufficient to overcome a system’s statistical inclination toward disorder (entropy) and thereby create order. This is especially unconvincing given the volumes, areas, and energies comparative in each.
Now assume that entropy of the system can be overcome. I haven’t even started on the laughable statistical probablities required to reach today’s state of complexity without falling backward in the cycle.
Science is as much an investigation of how God put it together as it is trying to figure out how it all works and what it is to begin with.
Observe
Hypothesis
Predict
Experiment
Analyze
Conclude/Report
That’s science. And yes the schools are even trying to change the scientific method.
****Why? Because I won’t conflate evolution and abiogenesis? At worst it’s dishonest. At best it’s just downright lazy.****
It’s not the least bit dishonest..... and I guarantee you that I am not lazy when it comes to researching this.
*****Science are hard. Dogma is easy.*****
Never has there been a more unfounded dogma than the theory of evolution. It is not science, it is philosophy built upon conjecture on top of assumptions and grounded in faith.
Cambrian Explosion ..... Ignore it.
Law of Biogenesis...... Ignore it.
Law of Causality, Law of the Conservation of Matter, 1st Law of Thermo...... Ignore, Ignore, Ignore.
2nd Law of Thermo..... Twist
Transitional Fossils.....can’t find em.... better come up with something ..... ahh!!!! Punctuated Equilibrium.
Evidence that may support the opposing view? Ridicule, invective, shun.
Refuse to peer-review their papers and then call them nonsense because they’ve not been peer-reviewed.
Yeah..... I know how it all works.
“I disagree that random energy focused on random atoms and/or molecules alone is sufficient to overcome a system’s statistical inclination toward disorder (entropy) and thereby create order. This is especially unconvincing given the volumes, areas, and energies comparative in each.”
Sunlight isn’t random energy though. Combined with planetary revolution and rotation, it’s quite regular and predictable, evidenced by its ability to create predictable weather cycles and day/night cycles. Once you have ordered, organized cycles like that, it is no leap to see how other processes would naturally tend to synchronize and result in a pretty stable, ordered system.
Well then good luck convincing anyone who knows the difference, and thinks honesty means saying what you really mean.
You are indeed entitled to your hypothesis and I salute you for it.
As I understand the evolutionary theory requires a spasmodic soup of chemicals, impacts, and other chaotic processes in order to justify the coaxing of life from the primordial ooze, such a situation is in direct contradiction to the stable predicatable, and regular cycle to which you reference.
Now I will admit that neither you nor I can properly test our Hypothoses, as it is a statistical impossibility to prove a negative in a singular opportunity situation with no repeated experiments. As such both you and I must continue to observe and support our hypothoses based upon the available system, hoping for additional credible evidence that is supportive of whichever is being proposed.
Evolution, Creation, and other cosmologic theories, not being able to disapprove another (though I personally think the lack of turtles in space does tend to disprove the whole turtles all the way down theory), for this reason cannot become Laws but must remain theories.
Thus I arrive back at my original post related to the Law of Entropy quite dishelved, thus providing further prove that a closed system will tend toward thermodynamic equilibrium and disorder.
“As I understand the evolutionary theory requires a spasmodic soup of chemicals, impacts, and other chaotic processes in order to justify the coaxing of life from the primordial ooze, such a situation is in direct contradiction to the stable predicatable, and regular cycle to which you reference.”
Please don’t mistake me, I don’t believe in abiogenesis or Darwinian evolution creating all the species we see today from one common ancestor. I am a creationist. However, I just don’t believe that entropy is a good argument against the evolutionists’ argument.
Think of it this way. Another way of talking about entropy is to say that the energy levels in the closed system tends towards uniformity. So, if you have a closed bottle of atoms, with no input/output, they can start out with pockets of hot atoms and pockets of cold atoms, but eventually, they will all have a uniform temperature.
If that bottle is the earth, you’d have to spin it around and have it circle a hot lamp at regular intervals. It’s no longer possible for the atoms to achieve a uniform temperature, because as soon as they did, the energy input would heat up the atoms on the “day” side of the bottle more than the other, and the equilibrium is gone. So you see, the tendency towards equilibrium is far too easily countered for it to be any impediment to the evolutionary theories.
speculation, huh, doesn’t sound very “scientific” to me. but hey i can speculate too:
this is among many things a “synchronizing,” very efficient power transfer mechanism. as an engineer, i would “speculate” that, this makes two legs (normally a better situation) into one leg for a specific purpose. what you describe is far, far away from that.
and sorry, you did give me a chuckle. a one, or two or four toothed gear is exactly what we would call a “broken gear.”
Tacticalogic...... Do you believe there is a creator? If so, do you believe it is the God of the Bible?
OK - but that energy input is still uniform over the short term and equilibrium will be reached based upon the energy input level with minimal changes between night and day, where variance is minimal in regards to the amount required to achieve the levels of process required for the effects required of abiogenesis. Note I do believe in evolutionary change in regards to related species or as some creationists state within “kind”.
Another way to think of entropy; however, is that a large volume of molecules in a vat will not spontaneously resolve themselves into a larger molecular structure which requires energy to achieve, but will instead evenly disperse seeking an equilibrium of presence throughout the solution ala diffusion.
Still a third way to think of entropy is related to molecular energy. It takes more energy to create a molecule of greater complexity than it does to break down that complexity. Provided entropy applies (which as a law it surely does) then complex molecules will tend toward less complexity not more complexity in order to achieve a greater dispersion of entropy within the system.
Last but not least is what I call simple entropy - which isn’t so much a physical law, but something I’ve observed which is that systems will always tend toward disorder without active maintenance to prevent or correct the disorder created by outside forces. So while you postulate that light is an energy source providing work, I would argue it is also a disrupting force to any systems that were previously created. This then leads to the statistical discussions on the inviability of natural selection to create multiply dependent complex DNA strands which are dependent on each other for viability without widespread infant mortality in every generation. I’m not aware of many complex organisms that exist with only 1 set of chromosomes plant or animal. Many of these chromosomal sets rely on each other to ensure organic functions are achieved. I just don’t see that occurring from an entropy standpoint on it’s own. Statistically it would require a miracle just to sustain an organic population of any level of complexity let alone build it to a greater level, when the mathematics would require an equal chance to regress.
I’m just speaking off the cuff, and understand you are on the same page as I regarding creation. But these are the discussions that should be had with the “professional” scientists. The difficulty is that the people entrenched in the peer review process are such that they will not accept such philosophical arguments as anything less than heresy to their own religion/beliefs. Frankly a scientist who is afraid to accept the data is no scientist.
“OK - but that energy input is still uniform over the short term and equilibrium will be reached based upon the energy input level with minimal changes between night and day, where variance is minimal in regards to the amount required to achieve the levels of process required for the effects required of abiogenesis.”
Alright, I guess this is where my confusion occurred. I thought you were citing entropy as some barrier to evolution, as if entropy would stop life from becoming more complex or organized once it started going. Your argument about equilibrium being a barrier to abiogenesis is a different matter though.
Once life is going, there is a animate process that can harness the energy input and develop complexity in ways that simple systems, like you find on a dead planet, never could. So, on a place like Venus or Mars, the only “evolution” you would see would be tectonic or climate changes, since that is all the energy input has to effect changes on. On a living planet like Earth, though, life itself adds not just more things to harness the energy, but a more complex feedback mechanism to the entire planet.
I think it’s logical that the more complex the feedback system which defines the equilibrium, then the more fragile the equilibrium would be as well, so a living planet would be harder to model as some closed system tending towards a single equilibrium state.
“Last but not least is what I call simple entropy - which isn’t so much a physical law, but something I’ve observed which is that systems will always tend toward disorder without active maintenance to prevent or correct the disorder created by outside forces.”
This is probably a true observation, but too simple to apply to living systems. Even life with no real intelligence can maintain high levels of organization, as long as it can sustain and replicate itself. So the energy from the Sun, which sustains all the life, should be, in combination with the natural properties of life, enough to constitute sufficient “maintenance” to prevent disorder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.