Did you notice that you did not make any prediction. Not even an attempt? You did not say my cat would die (thank you) or that she would get fleas (thanks again). You immediately asked questions about the second law. The Second Law is not very controversial. It is well described and most of the effects are well described. But if you insist on answers here they are:
>>I have a single particle in an ion trap; make a thermodynamic prediction.<<
I predict that you don't. Faulty basis.
>>I have a single nucleus of U-238. Tell me when it will decay.<<
I predict that you still don't have one.
But I do have a cat, and she is black.
Evolutionists have faith by tautology. Truth by definition. Easy but hardly useful or virtuous (it requires nothing). I've asked for the tools that evolution gives you, to do something. And you still cannot even convince a group of fairly smart individuals that evolution is more than a proposition.
You have not owned up to the frauds that plagued biology for decades, many of which were used as "proof" of the theory.
Ignorant? Gee Mr. Wizard, maybe people would be more open to the idea of evolution if biologists (previous exception of molecular biology etc. in force) would do more hard studies instead of spouting unproven claptrap. How many skulls were biologists fooled by? How many bird studies were incredibly flawed? How many times was speciation the word of the day?
As a scientist you compare the second law of thermodynamics to evolution as a principle? What bar have you been hanging out in? Darwin's?
You said that
" ...The principle that evolution proceeds by variation and natural selection has been unchanged for 100 years."
and then you immediately talked about the disagreements in it application and mechanism. Not a good candidate for a principle yet, eh?
If I said out loud in a bar "Nothing is 100% efficient." I doubt that I would get a rousing cheer. But I think everyone one under 0.04% would understand.
But if you went into a bar and said "Monkeys and man had common ancesters." They'd reply, "Maybe on your mother's side,".
Einstein talked about second law violations when he was in the patent office. "Show me."
That's why biology is not taken seriously as a hard science.
>>By whom? You and the boys down the local bar? Biology isn't a 'hard science'; but it is a science, and an increasingly quantitative one.<<
Guess what Doc, the guys at the local bar are not interested in biology. Not evolutionary biology, not molecular biology, possibly human biology, but that is not a shock. You have here a real audience. One that does not depend on you for their grades or prestige. If you would like to retreat to the safety of a class where everyone will parrot your view, 'til you feel like a king, have at it. If you remember, that what this thread is about. Real science will wait you out.
>>What I'm getting is largely ignorant prejudice. I doubt that's what you want me to get. But sweeping attacks on the integrity of a successful scientific field do that to me.<<
You can't even acknowledge the frauds, how can you possibly hope to convince a bunch of skeptics? I am curious about how you can mistake informed disbelief with ignorant prejudice.
Kind of funny how that works out with word games, isn't it. You know, theory, principle, and proposition. Never had that problem with an Engineer, or a Chemist but it does show up in Politicians, and Theoretical Mathematicians(sometimes).
If you are a real professor, then it is your job to convince people and help them understand stuff. I'm not asking you to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, just cut the crap.
DK
Did you notice that you did not make any prediction. Not even an attempt? You did not say my cat would die (thank you) or that she would get fleas (thanks again). I thought we were discussing evolution, or scientific laws, but in fact we were just following some weird pattern of free association known only to you personally. My mistake.
I have a single nucleus of U-238. Tell me when it will decay.
I predict that you still don't have one.
You're wrong. In fact, I hav 10^20 or so such atoms on a shelf in my lab, in a bottle of uranyl nitrate. Evolutionists have faith by tautology. Truth by definition
This is just uncorroborated assertion on your part. Evolution is supported by a vast weight of observational evidence; it can be demonstrated in the lab and outside it. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la' won't make it go away.
And you still cannot even convince a group of fairly smart individuals that evolution is more than a proposition.
I'm sorry, are you referrring to creationists? Ha ha ha.
You have not owned up to the frauds that plagued biology for decades, many of which were used as "proof" of the theory.
Biology has been no more plagued by fraud than any other field; scientific fraud, while deplorable, has had little overall influence on the progress of science. If the results are important, they're checked; if they're not, who cares?
As a scientist you compare the second law of thermodynamics to evolution as a principle?
Yes. And you haven't been able to come up with an argument why they should not be compared, so you're ranting.
" ...The principle that evolution proceeds by variation and natural selection has been unchanged for 100 years." and then you immediately talked about the disagreements in it application and mechanism. Not a good candidate for a principle yet, eh?
Do you know the difference between a principle and its applications?
Einstein talked about second law violations when he was in the patent office. "Show me."
A wise man, was Einstein. Show me evidence of creation. Got photographs?
That's why biology is not taken seriously as a hard science.
...by you and the lads down in the bar. Otherwise this is an attempt by proof by repeated assertion. On the contrary, I can point to the massive funding of biological research by the NIH, NSF and drug companies; the mmebership of scores of eminent biologists in the National Academy of Sciences; the worldwide importance of biological research to the global economy.
You can't even acknowledge the frauds, how can you possibly hope to convince a bunch of skeptics?
Creationists are not skeptics, they're self-blinded ignorant zealots.
If you are a real professor, then it is your job to convince people and help them understand stuff. I'm not asking you to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, just cut the crap.
First of all, I am eternally thankful that it's not up you to tell me my job. Second, I can't teach people who are not willing to learn; nor am I willing to waste my time trying. I don't want to convince you. I want to discredit you. People who go around claiming that evolution is on the run, on the say-so of a group of crackpots on a web site in Seattle, when a trip to the library or to a journal web page will show them the literally hundreds of papers per year that are now using molecular means to fill in the details of evolution (and no, repeat no, research biologist of any standing disputes the principle.), are way beyond convincing.
Wake up, and peel the tinfoil off your skull.