The theory of evolution doesn't kill people, people who believe it do.

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from Barth Vader:

Sorry for the delay......Every Saturday we go to the grocery market. I have come to understand that if I do not provide energy [food] for a biological system [me] it will reach a state of equilibrium or maximum entropy [death]

So where were we.......oh yes, open systems.

The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law, directly observable in nature and in experimentation. To my knowledge [ I will admit that I am more familiar with the philosophical perspectives of science than the actual mechanics], the vast majority of scientific experimentation is conducted upon "isolated or closed" systems. To argue for macro-evolution based upon the results of observation on isolated systems would be a severe handicap to the macro thesis, especially when entropy is the object of the experimentation.

Biological systems are open systems, as you have intimated, as their boundarys' are crossed by matter, such as my food intake example [ I spared the board any example of waste output !]

To argue that it is possible for macro-evolution to occur in open systems, would require that these systems show immunity to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and furthermore, we should be able to observe the negative entropy causation in operational effect as we speak. I am not familiar that this has been observed.

To follow your argument of open systems receiving a get out of jail free card from the empirical demands of the second law, which would require these systems to be systems of negative entropy change [ not just conservation], which obviously requires the energy source to be of such magnitude and quality to produce a positive entropy change in the surroundings of the biological system.

In other words, the energy source for the open system must have "ordering" production capabilities. Simple energy from the sun, for example, is not sufficient to explain the "order enhancement" required for the macro-evoluntionary thesis to
produce a surrounding that enables order from dis-order [especially as it relates to the first law], especially when we consider the primordal starting ground that these super microbes began their ascent.

It would appear, that at the end of the day, creation advocates and macro advocates must walk upon the field of speculation and faith. For me, the Creator has provided the order for our existence, and the laws which science observes. Science has yet to observe macro-evolution or its uncanny presumed ability to escape the "order" and "laws" contained in the creation itself.

Any reasonable physicist will tell you that current laws of physics may not apply to period of creation of the universe.

 

[stu]

Quote from Barth Vader:

Sorry for the delay......Every Saturday we go to the grocery market. I have come to understand that if I do not provide energy [food] for a biological system [me] it will reach a state of equilibrium or maximum entropy [death]

So where were we.......oh yes, open systems.

The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law, directly observable in nature and in experimentation. To my knowledge [ I will admit that I am more familiar with the philosophical perspectives of science than the actual mechanics], the vast majority of scientific experimentation is conducted upon "isolated or closed" systems. To argue for macro-evolution based upon the results of observation on isolated systems would be a severe handicap to the macro thesis, especially when entropy is the object of the experimentation.

Biological systems are open systems, as you have intimated, as their boundarys' are crossed by matter, such as my food intake example [ I spared the board any example of waste output !]

To argue that it is possible for macro-evolution to occur in open systems, would require that these systems show immunity to the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and furthermore, we should be able to observe the negative entropy causation in operational effect as we speak. I am not familiar that this has been observed.

To follow your argument of open systems receiving a get out of jail free card from the empirical demands of the second law, which would require these systems to be systems of negative entropy change [ not just conservation], which obviously requires the energy source to be of such magnitude and quality to produce a positive entropy change in the surroundings of the biological system.

In other words, the energy source for the open system must have "ordering" production capabilities. Simple energy from the sun, for example, is not sufficient to explain the "order enhancement" required for the macro-evoluntionary thesis to
produce a surrounding that enables order from dis-order [especially as it relates to the first law], especially when we consider the primordal starting ground that these super microbes began their ascent.

It would appear, that at the end of the day, creation advocates and macro advocates must walk upon the field of speculation and faith. For me, the Creator has provided the order for our existence, and the laws which science observes. Science has yet to observe macro-evolution or its uncanny presumed ability to escape the "order" and "laws" contained in the creation itself.

What are you talking about ? What the hell has the 1st or 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics really to do with evolution?
Are you honestly trying to use them to disqualify macro-evolution? That's like trying to disprove evolution due to the laws of gravity.

Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of micro-evolution (tiny changes) over enormous lengths of time. The whole (macro and micro) is evolution itself.
That a new species (macro) can evolve, has nothing to do with being hindered by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Your totally ill founded argument is tantamount to suggesting that because you put ingredients together to make food outside, you can’t eat it.
The creationists' ridiculous position is that because macro-evolution cannot occur in open systems then necessarily , neither can voltaic cells.

Parroting the worn out nonsense of creationists who are always trying to produce some junk science or other pretending it proves them right is hardly convincing ( other than to another creationist) that there is anything whatsoever to do with science justifying a "Creator". Trying to mess up science to support faith is not edifying.

 

[Vista]

Quote from Barth Vader:


The second law of thermodynamics is an empirical law, directly observable in nature and in experimentation. To my knowledge [ I will admit that I am more familiar with the philosophical perspectives of science than the actual mechanics], the vast majority of scientific experimentation is conducted upon "isolated or closed" systems. To argue for macro-evolution based upon the results of observation on isolated systems would be a severe handicap to the macro thesis, especially when entropy is the object of the experimentation.

Again, to use the 2nd Law and entropy as proof against evolution, it would have to be a closed, isolated system without energy input. It is not. This is simply a dead end.

 

[fhl]

If this afghan can talk, then so could balaam's donkey.

 

[151]

Why do the most outspoken supporters of evolution nearly always pretend creation is the only differeing opinion on the history of life?

What about the great unknown?

What about all the times that "science" has ridiculed those who had a differing opinion or idea that turned out to be correct?

Several times the majority has been wrong wrong wrong about truth and science. There is just as great a possibility that evolution is the end all theory of life, as there was that the wright brothers were flamboyant liars.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from 151:

Why do the most outspoken supporters of evolution nearly always pretend creation is the only differeing opinion on the history of life?

What about the great unknown?

What about all the times that "science" has ridiculed those who had a differing opinion or idea that turned out to be correct?

Several times the majority has been wrong wrong wrong about truth and science. There is just as great a possibility that evolution is the end all theory of life, as there was that the wright brothers were flamboyant liars.

because these debates usually start in response to some creationist nonsense. just like this thread.

 

[151]

Quote from vhehn:

because these debates usually start in response to some creationist nonsense. just like this thread.

That is a lame excuse for picking on the smallest boy in the class.

"he started it"

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from 151:

Why do the most outspoken supporters of evolution nearly always pretend creation is the only differeing opinion on the history of life?

What about the great unknown?

What about all the times that "science" has ridiculed those who had a differing opinion or idea that turned out to be correct?

Several times the majority has been wrong wrong wrong about truth and science. There is just as great a possibility that evolution is the end all theory of life, as there was that the wright brothers were flamboyant liars.

People who criticize evolution loudly in public channels always have an agenda. If you don't like evolution propose something else, but use proper channels. Teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution or saying "evolution is just a theory" wink wink is indiciative of ulterior motives.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from 151:

That is a lame excuse for picking on the smallest boy in the class.

"he started it"

the superstition of religion gained such a large foothold because knowledgeable people were afraid or unable to speak up. those days are over. the internet has changed that.

 

[stu]

Quote from 151:

What about the great unknown?

It's unknown, so what about it?

Quote from 151:

What about all the times that "science" has ridiculed those who had a differing opinion or idea that turned out to be correct?

"science" is not science. Science as a method produces knowledge not ridicule.