The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[diablodelmar]

Evolution is specifically about how organisms grow and adapt to new environments.

Although the Big Bang is certainly part of the "Creationism" debate, it's got nothing to do with evolution.

Actually the Big Bang has everything to do with evolution. You're just avoiding it because you know that it isn't solid ground for an arguement on your side.

 

[ironduck]

It wouldn't accumulate faster, though (if they degraded at the same rate). Remember, the mitochondria are preserved. They're not 'new' organisms every generation (unlike us) - they're the same organism.

So, a rat born 20 years after its ancestor would have the same degredation at the mtDNA in the gamete of a 20 year old woman. (Again, assuming the same rate of degradation).

Hmm.. you're right, but I thought the degradation rate increased with age.

 

[diablodelmar]

diablodelmar

All you're doing is throwing catch-phrases at us, instead of actually formulating coherent arguments so that we can have an intelligent discussion.

"THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!$@!!" is not really an argument. If you think that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the theory of evolution, please outline HOW, so that we can either agree with you, or attempt to counter your claims.

Also, The theory of Evolution makes no mention of the Big Bang. Surely, you understand this.

Well, the fact that things tend towards disorder explains for the fact that we could not have evolved. Devilishly simple, eh?

Catch phrases? thats creative.

 

[El_Machinae]

No "actually" evolution is referring to one thing, living organisms adapting.

Whether or not God created the universe 6000 years ago, evolution is occuring today. We see it all the time in smaller organisms, and nature looks like it occured in all organisms.

The Big Bang is a theory as to how our material universe started. Then we guess that Abiogenesis occured (the formation of life from non-life).

The FACT of modern evolution has nothing to do with how the universe started, because it's going on right now. We've seen it.

 

[ironduck]

Which one? The one where you expressed your belief for rain and rainbows before the flood? Relay this question again, please.

Post 28 on page 1.

 

[MrCynical]

I am afraid I don't know the answer to that question.

Diablodelmar, you aren't going to be able to make any sensible arguments involving thermodynamics unless you understand this distinction. A closed (also known as isolated) system is one where no energy is gained or lost from outside. An open system is either gaining energy from an outside source, losing energy to it's surroundings, or usually both. The Earth for instance is an open system, since it receives energy from the Sun, and loses energy, mostly in the form of heat, to space.

what exactly is incongruent with thermodynamics and evolution?

A common creationist argument is that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodyamics. To put the 2nd law in simple terms:

"The entropy of an isolated system increases in the course of a spontaneous change"

In other words, in an isolated system for something to occur spontaneously it must increase the level of disorder in the system. Creationists frequently argue that since evolution involves an increase in order, and so a reduction of entropy, that evolution violates the 2nd law. This in practice indicates a lack of understanding of thermodynamics, as Earth is not an isolated system as I have already explained.

No they aren't though! Matter is not being created or destroyed, we already had the hydrogen, oxygen and all the other elements to make a full human being, they were just put in through feeding and breathing.

What I am refering to is the supposed "big bang". Allegedly, nothing exploded and became something.

Here you're objecting to the Big Bang theory on the grounds of the first law, which is rather off topic to be honest, since it has nothing to do with evolution. Science has an explanation (though one I am somewhat dubious of) for this. Religion however does not, since it requires the prior existence of a God, and makes no effort to explain the origin of this being. I always find it amusing when creationists object to the Big Bang theory, because at least science attempts to give an explanation for the origin of the universe, whereas religion makes no attempt to explain the origin of God.

eeerrrr, the one thats called Evolution. Have you heard of it?

Evolution and the Big Bang are completely separate theories. Evidence for or against one is not relevant to the other.

Things can get more complex, but this is only through intervention by something like the Sun or us humans. Otherwise left things will go to disorder. Things will rust or decay.

Bravo, you're very close to grasping the basic flaw in the "Evolution violates the second law" argument. The Earth has the Sun, and so complexity can arise here.

EDIT: Bleh, 20 odd posts here since I started typing this.

And how did this come about? You want to tell me that nothing can explode and create this? I see what you are getting at and am familiar with the concept. However, I think you will find that it still applies! even though we have the sun.

This thread is on the subject of evolution, not the Big Bang. Stop assuming arguments against the Big Bang are remotely relevant to evolution.

 

[Dr Tiny]

I am afraid I don't know the answer to that question.

Ok, no problem. Well then in laymans terms the three well known laws of thermodynamics are-

1. You can't win.
or "The increase in the energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings."

2. You can't break even.
or "The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."

3. And you can't get out of the game.
or "As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value or zero for the case of a perfect crystalline substance."

There is also a 4th law called the 0th (zeroth) law, the other three laws are fundamentally based on it. The zeroth law is-
"If two thermodynamic systems A and B are in thermal equilibrium, and B and C are also in thermal equilibrium, then A and C are in thermal equilibrium."
Which sounds complicated but basically means that any system is composed of multiple parts and that energy is transfered between them.

Now all this sounds very exciting, but how does it pertain to evolution? The alleged problem is mainly focused on the second law - you can't break even or entropy increases over time, but doesn't evolution lead to more complex arrangements of energy ie reduce entropy?

Well only if we consider the Earth as a closed system. That is where no more energy can get in, eventually everything would be eaten and used up. However, as it stands the Earth is an open system that is more energy is constantly being pumped into the ecosystem from the Sun which is converted to energy by plants. Now if you were to push this system along for a long enough time eventually the Sun will use up all of its fuel and die out and no more energy can get to the earth.

This is leading to a localised decrease in entropy, but is entirly consistent with the laws of thermodynamics as the system will collapse (entropy increase) once no more energy is being added to it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmm.. you're right, but I thought the degradation rate increased with age.

It does. There's a critical point, where the degradation accelerates (mainly because the housekeeping genes gradually turn off). It's a curve, not a line, where the degradation is gradual until after the (human) teens, and then it seems to get worse and worse.

 

[warpus]

Well, the fact that things tend towards disorder explains for the fact that we could not have evolved. Devilishly simple, eh?

Finally, a coherent argument!!

Things tend towards disorder in a CLOSED system.

The Earth is not a closed system - we receive plenty of energy from the sun - and this is precisely why the theory of evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It's much like you're able to grow from a fetus to an adult - you receive energy from the outside. You are not a closed system.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Actually the Big Bang has everything to do with evolution. You're just avoiding it because you know that it isn't solid ground for an arguement on your side.

This thread deals with creationism as opposed to biological evolution, not stellar evolution.

Perfection originally said: "When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly..."

Hence, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the evolution being discussed in this thread.

 

[diablodelmar]

No "actually" evolution is referring to one thing, living organisms adapting.

Whether or not God created the universe 6000 years ago, evolution is occuring today. We see it all the time in smaller organisms, and nature looks like it occured in all organisms.

The Big Bang is a theory as to how our material universe started. Then we guess that Abiogenesis occured (the formation of life from non-life).

The FACT of modern evolution has nothing to do with how the universe started, because it's going on right now. We've seen it.

Oh that is what is called "microevolution" which actually does happen, but it is the only one that has been observed and it does not (or, at least, in what has been proved/observed) add information, only gets rid of information. Macroevolution (the change from one kind to another) is merely a theory and has no evidence at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the fact that things tend towards disorder explains for the fact that we could not have evolved. Devilishly simple, eh?

Adults are more complex than babies. The fact that things tend towards disorder explains for the fact that babies cannot grow into adults.

I even TOLD you that your argument falls down early-on, because your argument does not explain people growing.

 

[diablodelmar]

This thread deals with creationism as opposed to biological evolution, not stellar evolution.

Perfection originally said: "When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly..."

Hence, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the evolution being discussed in this thread.

*coughs* *coughs again*

That is what I call admitting defeat. I agree that microevolution does happen, you know. Where the arguement starts is precisely in stellar, macro and all the other evolutions are, so I don't know what I'm doing here.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh that is what is called "microevolution" which actually does happen, but it is the only one that has been observed and it does not (or, at least, in what has been proved/observed) add information, only gets rid of information. Macroevolution (the change from one kind to another) is merely a theory and has no evidence at all.

You've said this before. I don't know how to explain it better, because you've never actually answered Erik's request that you explain what you mean by 'information'.

Because, when using genetics, information can certainly be gained through microevolution.

 

[diablodelmar]

Finally, a coherent argument!!

Things tend towards disorder in a CLOSED system.

The Earth is not a closed system - we receive plenty of energy from the sun - and this is precisely why the theory of evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It's much like you're able to grow from a fetus to an adult - you receive energy from the outside. You are not a closed system.

1st law applies here though..."matter cannot be created or destroyed"

 

[ironduck]

I don't know what I'm doing here.

I don't know either, you're much too smart for any of us.

 

[diablodelmar]

You've said this before. I don't know how to explain it better, because you've never actually answered Erik's request that you explain what you mean by 'information'.

Because, when using genetics, information can certainly be gained through microevolution.

But it has never been observed.

 

[MrCynical]

That is what I call admitting defeat. I agree that microevolution does happen, you know. Where the arguement starts is precisely in stellar, macro and all the other evolutions are, so I don't know what I'm doing here.

Can you please define what you mean by micro and macroevolution? In the last couple of posts you seem to be implying that you regard all of evolution from abiogensis to modern times as microevolution?

This is a thread on biological evolution, so arguments about anything prior to abiogenesis are not relevant. If you want a Big Bang and stellar evolution thread I'll start one, but it's not relevant to this discussion.

 

[El_Machinae]

But it has never been observed.

That's wrong. And whoever told you that is either mistaken or fibbing.

I extol you to look at the concept of a retrovirus.

Edit: they add their DNA to a host, and hope that it causes the host to make more viruses. Luckily, it doesn't always work, and sometimes the DNA is added to the host and incorporated into the DNA, and eventually passed on down the generations (available to mutation)

 

[MrCynical]

Originally Posted by warpus
Finally, a coherent argument!!

Things tend towards disorder in a CLOSED system.

The Earth is not a closed system - we receive plenty of energy from the sun - and this is precisely why the theory of evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

It's much like you're able to grow from a fetus to an adult - you receive energy from the outside. You are not a closed system.

1st law applies here though..."matter cannot be created or destroyed"

And matter isn't being created or destroyed during evolution. What's your point?