|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/16/2006 : 09:57:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
When someone comes here asking a very specific question, is it really right to just shove links in their face and to tell them to go read this?
Val, I can see only two links in your post that have anything to do with his question. Why not just post these two?
Val said:
quote:
You aren't the first to think that the second law of thermodynamics precludes evolution.
Huh? He didn't do that at all. Did you even read his post? He asked about a mechanism used to harness the energy. He never said anything about the 2nd Law not allowing evolution.
Rick,
Robb said, "When studying the second law of thermodynamics it occurred to me that there may be something to this law precluding evolution."
Second sentance, first paragraph of the original post.
I then relayed links of what directly applied to his question and logical follow up questions. I was giving him more links than directly related to his post. As it applies to someone who is just starting off on a journey of researching evolution, I thought by over communicating the basic concepts of evolution as it relates to standard Creationist literature would be helpful.
His usage of the concept of mechanism of change for evolution being related to energy flow was a little curious, so I had not responded to that part of it unless he continued with it. I thought that the links may show him something which would change his thinking on SLOT and evolution.
This isn't Robb's first time here. We have a history that you may not be aware of.
I do appreciate your concern over proper debate ettiquette and how we might turn someone off due to debating style in this matter. I don't think in this case it was that bad but it is something to keep in mind. Thanks. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 09:58:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
He never said anything about the 2nd Law not allowing evolution.
Absolutely he did:When studying the second law of thermodynamics it occurred to me that there may be something to this law precluding evolution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 10:44:15 [Permalink]
|
| I thought the links were quite helpful actually and better worded then most people can do in a forum reply off the top of their head. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 10:47:56 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: Can I give you some advice Dude? I think if you cut down on the attitude a little you would be an effective teacher. You obviosly have alot of knowledge on the subject, so why not educate people instead of making condensending remarks. If you don't want to educate me then just do not reply to my posts.
I am so glad someone said that to Dude. I get so sick of his, often totally uncalled for, rudeness.
To Dude: Some of us hold back our insults for the sake of communicating. Some of us also don't see every new person we encounter as a flat stereotype. I have met lots of intelligent people who tend to think there is something to some Creationist arguments. It isn't because they are fundamentalist Christians. It is because Creationism has heavily integrated itself into the mainstream culture. Fighting back involves explaining why those ideas are wrong, not just insulting people and telling them to not read Creationist literature. I say read it – and then learn about why it is wrong.
Ricky wrote: Huh? He didn't do that at all. Did you even read his post? He asked about a mechanism used to harness the energy. He never said anything about the 2nd Law not allowing evolution.
Um, actually, Ricky, he did. But Dave W. already quoted it, so I won't again.
However, I totally agree with you about excessive weblinks as a response. I don't think book recommendations are bad, but I do think Dude is rude in how he suggests reading materials. But don't blow things out of proportion. Val has been very informative and polite in his responses.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/16/2006 10:49:11 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 13:56:01 [Permalink]
|
I don't much like dealing with the Second Law when it comes to evolution. The argument-- when reduced to its most basic form-- is that one branch of science (i.e. physics, using its 2LOT) refutes another (i.e. evolution). More reduced, it uses the the laws of physics to argue for a supernatural explanation of origins. Or, at its most basic, natural laws are the best proof for supernatural events.
This, of course, is crazy. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 14:00:57 [Permalink]
|
BTW-- I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for 2LOT. It reads, in part:quote:
In a general sense, the second law says that the differences between systems in contact with each other tend to even out. Pressure differences, density differences, and particularly temperature differences, all tend to equalize if given the opportunity. This means that an isolated system will eventually come to have a uniform temperature.
Assuming this is correct (it is Wikipedia, so there's no assurance that it's 100% correct), then we can know that the earth isn't a closed system-- as near as I can tell, the earth is not at a uniform temperature. That, or my friends are screwing with me when they tell me that San Juan is so nice this time of year... |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 14:20:50 [Permalink]
|
Robb, I wish you the best in your effort to understand evolution. As others have said, though, the 2nd law has little to do with it.
quote:
If the earth is looked at as an open system, energy from the sun can pass the boundary and entropy would be reduced on the earth to increase the complexity of life but entropy would be increased overall in the sun/earth system to satisfy the second law.
Actually, the sun/earth system is also an open system, so you can't apply the 2nd law here either. About all you can say is that the entropy of the universe increases more than the entropy of the earth decreases. In any case, the 2nd law does not prohibit the earth's entropy from decreasing. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 15:56:58 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for all the replies, I think the links Val gave were helpful.
If I understand correctly: When reproduction of cells happen, more energy does not need to be used for a mutation to happen than for reproduction without any mutations. So then when a mutation happens this can add complexity to a life form without any added energy and the mechanism is reproduction itself. Is this correct?
To clarify, I do beleive in God and creation as it happened in the Bible. I am not sold that the earth is 6000 years old however, or many other claims of creationists like Dr. Kent Hovind. I assure you that I am not trying to learn about evolution to condemn it. I want to know when people talk about it from any point of view if they have any validity or not. I also would like to educate the people at my church about evolution and how it works. Most people there believe that evolutionsts think that a chimp evolved into people. I think that if a christian does not think that evolution happened, they should at least know what the theory says. I may not agree that we came from single cell organisms millions of years ago. But I would like to know about how evolutionists think it happened. I figure if I read books and websites and come here for things I don't understand that I read, I can get a good education on the subject. Thanks for the help. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:08:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
To clarify, I do beleive in God and creation as it happened in the Bible.
Are you open to the possibility of changing your mind on that?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:23:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Thanks for all the replies, I think the links Val gave were helpful.
If I understand correctly: When reproduction of cells happen, more energy does not need to be used for a mutation to happen than for reproduction without any mutations. So then when a mutation happens this can add complexity to a life form without any added energy and the mechanism is reproduction itself. Is this correct?
I would say that that is very correct. Kudos.
quote:
To clarify, I do beleive in God and creation as it happened in the Bible. I am not sold that the earth is 6000 years old however, or many other claims of creationists like Dr. Kent Hovind. I assure you that I am not trying to learn about evolution to condemn it. I want to know when people talk about it from any point of view if they have any validity or not. I also would like to educate the people at my church about evolution and how it works. Most people there believe that evolutionsts think that a chimp evolved into people. I think that if a christian does not think that evolution happened, they should at least know what the theory says. I may not agree that we came from single cell organisms millions of years ago. But I would like to know about how evolutionists think it happened. I figure if I read books and websites and come here for things I don't understand that I read, I can get a good education on the subject. Thanks for the help.
And kudos to that. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:44:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am not sold that the earth is 6000 years old
I am curious. How old do you think it is? The 6000 year old date is supposedly calculate based on the bible, so I was wondering what age you would ascribe and how you came about it, and why the 6000 year old number is not valid. "I don't know how old it is." is also a valid response :-) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 16:57:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If I understand correctly: When reproduction of cells happen, more energy does not need to be used for a mutation to happen than for reproduction without any mutations. So then when a mutation happens this can add complexity to a life form without any added energy and the mechanism is reproduction itself. Is this correct?
It does not really matter if more energy is needed to create a mutation than to keep "status quo". Some mutations, such as transpositions (insertion or deletion in effect), probably do consume energy in the form of ATP (at least indirectly). I suppose that you could equate insertion with increased complexity and deletion with decreased complexity - both at the expense of using energy. Just because these reactions use energy it does not follow that they violate SLOT.
As has already been pointed out, SLOT doesn't prevent evolution any more than it prevents life. You started out as a single-celled organism and most of the cells that you consist of now will contain mutations relative to that single cell. If evolution violated SLOT, then so would you. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 17:47:47 [Permalink]
|
Ricky said:
quote:
Huh? He didn't do that at all. Did you even read his post? He asked about a mechanism used to harness the energy. He never said anything about the 2nd Law not allowing evolution.
I'll refer you to the first post in this thread, as others have already done, just in case you missed it in your haste to jump my case for being rude.
Robb said:
quote:
When studying the second law of thermodynamics it occurred to me that there may be something to this law precluding evolution.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
