Argument against Evolution I hadn't read before...

[MJDuncan1982]

There is no plausible theory, outside of ID, that can explain how such things came to be.

Yes there is, evolution. Things react for efficiency. If it is more efficient for the amino acids to couple into proteins then it could happen. The movements of amoeba are the same. There is no 'intelligence', just reactions to the environment that give that impression. Compound the different instances of this over millions of years and complexity is not that implausible. At least to me.

A clock does not necessitate a clockmaker.

 

[dmp]

Yes there is, evolution. Things react for efficiency. If it is more efficient for the amino acids to couple into proteins then it could happen. The movements of amoeba are the same. There is no 'intelligence', just reactions to the environment that give that impression. Compound the different instances of this over millions of years and complexity is not that implausible. At least to me.

A clock does not necessitate a clockmaker.

"Anything left alone, over time, will deteriorate, NOT improve itself" - that's a law of physics; not biology I know...but it fits.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I agree the law of entropy may throw a kink in Evolution but we need to not put all of our faith in such laws because they frequently change, i.e. relativity.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Anything left alone, over time, will deteriorate, NOT improve itself" - that's a law of physics; not biology I know...but it fits.

The bodies of individual organisms deteriorate, but life renews itself by reproduction.

 

[dmp]

I agree the law of entropy may throw a kink in Evolution but we need to not put all of our faith in such laws because they frequently change, i.e. relativity.

You keyed in on a, uh..key.

Faith.

Evolution requires Faith.

ID, (although making MORE sense to me, scientifically) requires Faith as well.

 

[dmp]

The bodies of individual organisms deteriorate, but life renews itself by reproduction.

Renewing isn't the same thing.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Renewing isn't the same thing.

The reproduction of life is how we fight the entropy and deterioration which occurs at the individual level. ANd even if the universe as a whole is constantly losting energy, our proximity to our life sustaining sun will keep us going for a while. Evolution is real, obvious, and proven as far as I'm concerned. Do you think the world is flat as well?

 

[5stringJeff]

Things react for efficiency. If it is more efficient for the amino acids to couple into proteins then it could happen. The movements of amoeba are the same. There is no 'intelligence', just reactions to the environment that give that impression. Compound the different instances of this over millions of years and complexity is not that implausible. At least to me.

A clock does not necessitate a clockmaker.

...

I agree the law of entropy may throw a kink in Evolution but we need to not put all of our faith in such laws because they frequently change, i.e. relativity.

-=d=-'s point is right on: the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, without energy (work) put into a system, matter always goes from a more organized state of being to a less organized state of being. Thus, the necessity for lightning, thermal energy, etc. to be present for amino acids to form.

But the Second Law does not frequently change. It is a constant of nature, like the speed of light. So your hypothesis breaks down.

As to your first post, a clock would necessitate a clockmaker, because gears, hands, faces, etc. will never spontaneously match up with each other and create a clock out of themselves.

 

[dmp]

The reproduction of life is how we fight the entropy and deterioration which occurs at the individual level. ANd even if the universe as a whole is constantly losting energy, our proximity to our life sustaining sun will keep us going for a while. Evolution is real, obvious, and proven as far as I'm concerned. Do you think the world is flat as well?

Evolution...Micro evolution happens. Species evolve...the grow..they shrink...they change. They will never, outside of genetic experiments, become a 'different' species.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

-=d=-'s point is right on: the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, without energy (work) put into a system, matter always goes from a more organized state of being to a less organized state of being. Thus, the necessity for lightning, thermal energy, etc. to be present for amino acids to form.

But the Second Law does not frequently change. It is a constant of nature, like the speed of light. So your hypothesis breaks down.

As to your first post, a clock would necessitate a clockmaker, because gears, hands, faces, etc. will never spontaneously match up with each other and create a clock out of themselves.

I've noticed a post or two helping to explain the Entropy problem. It was mentioned that as a whole, entropy is increasing but it can go up and down in various places. So long as the net entropy of the universe is increasing the law of entropy is not violated. Our little area of the universe may be decreasing in entropy but the universe is increasing, even the sun is boiling down.
Example: I can bake a cake and the entropy will go down but eventually, the second law will prevail and the cake will dissolve.

And you miss my point about the law of entropy. Don't be so sure that it is a constant of nature. The question of the constancy of the speed of light is currently being questioned. In some instance light has been slowed down by just a fraction. I believe Einstein showed us the error in believing in something 100%.

And -=d=-,

I said we shouldn't have faith in a certain law of nature. Further, I believe you are equivocating the two different meanings of faith we are using. Just because I used the same combination of letters doesn't mean it had the same definition. What I meant by the phrase (don't put all our faith in), as many people do, is that we shouldn't accept it to be 100% true. Nothing to do with believing something that can have no emperical evidence.

 

[dmp]

And -=d=-,

I said we shouldn't have faith in a certain law of nature. Further, I believe you are equivocating the two different meanings of faith we are using. Just because I used the same combination of letters doesn't mean it had the same definition. What I meant by the phrase (don't put all our faith in), as many people do, is that we shouldn't accept it to be 100% true. Nothing to do with believing something that can have no emperical evidence.

uh...okay..I was taking some words you typed, and applying them, in context of the discussion, to a point which was not yet brought up. You used the word 'faith' - I read that word, and it brought out a point I wished to make.

Hope you understand that.

For what it's worth, it'd intellectually dishonest to state there is no empirical evidence for Creation rather than 'your' version of evolution.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

You miss my point about the clockmaker.

It is used in logic courses to show a common error.

If I find a rock, is there a rock maker? If I find a tree, is there a tree maker? The answer is obviously no regarding the type of "maker" that would make a clock. I've heard of people making "rocks" from other rocks but they are not making a rock in the same way that one makes a clock.

Intelligent design advocates have taken the idea that because some things require a maker, all things require a maker.

For something to exist, it does not have had to have been created by an intelligent entity.

 

[Zhukov]

The entropy argument stressed by anti-evolutionists is illogically constraining.

Such a constrictive interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if pertinent, would realisitically prohibit the construction of buildings, cars, computers, et cetera.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

uh...okay..I was taking some words you typed, and applying them, in context of the discussion, to a point which was not yet brought up. You used the word 'faith' - I read that word, and it brought out a point I wished to make.

Hope you understand that.

For what it's worth, it'd intellectually dishonest to state there is no empirical evidence for Creation rather than 'your' version of evolution.

Geez what is with people putting words in other people's mouths? Did I say creationism had no emperical evidence? No.

But that is the essence of faith. To believe something on faith means there is no emperical evidence and nor is it needed.

 

[dmp]

The entropy argument stressed by anti-evolutionists is illogically constraining.

Such a constrictive interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, if pertinent, would realisitically prohibit the construction of buildings, cars, computers, et cetera.

It would prohibit those things coming into existance without outside help...it would prohibit the materials used therein to spontaneously combine to form such objects.

 

[Zhukov]

Evolution...Micro evolution happens. Species evolve...the grow..they shrink...they change. They will never, outside of genetic experiments, become a 'different' species.

If species evolve isn't it logical to assume given enough time between two seperate populations, geographically or otherwise isolated from one another, that eventually the genetic differences acquired thru generations would accumulate so that the two populations were sufficiently different to prohibit interbreeding? If not, why not?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Evolution...Micro evolution happens. Species evolve...the grow..they shrink...they change. They will never, outside of genetic experiments, become a 'different' species.

yes. They change. And if a population of individuals of the same species is split and put into two environments where the forces and conditions acting upon them are sufficiently different, different traits will be selected for, the populations will diverge.

 

[Zhukov]

It would prohibit those things coming into existance without outside help...it would prohibit the materials used therein to spontaneously combine to form such objects.

Based on the thrust of the 'entropy' argument it would prohibit any sort of organization whatsoever.

The argument against complex proteins forming on their own because 'the second law of thermodynamics prohibits it' omits the fact that complex structures, organic or otherwise, can (and do) form so long as the overall entropy in the Universe increases. If that argument were actually true alloys wouldn't form, concrete couldn't be made, salts wouldn't crystalize, and so forth. It's just too restrictive an interpretation of the Second Law. Complicated structures form constantly in the Universe, absent intelligent intervention, and the second law isn't violated.

Perhaps my example of buildings and cars wasn't the best.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Based on the thrust of the 'entropy' argument it would prohibit any sort of organization whatsoever.

The argument against complex proteins forming on their own because 'the second law of thermodynamics prohibits it' omits the fact that complex structures, organic or otherwise, can (and do) form so long as the overall entropy in the Universe increases. If that argument were actually true alloys wouldn't form, concrete couldn't be made, salts wouldn't crystalize, and so forth. It's just too restrictive an interpretation of the Second Law. Complicated structures form constantly in the Universe, absent intelligent intervention, and the second law isn't violated.

Perhaps my example of buildings and cars wasn't the best.

I agree totally. Hurricanes form all the time. Great organization of energy and matter but in the long run do not last.

 

[5stringJeff]

I've noticed a post or two helping to explain the Entropy problem. It was mentioned that as a whole, entropy is increasing but it can go up and down in various places. So long as the net entropy of the universe is increasing the law of entropy is not violated. Our little area of the universe may be decreasing in entropy but the universe is increasing, even the sun is boiling down.
Example: I can bake a cake and the entropy will go down but eventually, the second law will prevail and the cake will dissolve.

The second law applies to systems, not just to the universe as a whole. If you put energy into a system, you can increase its orderliness. For example, if you don't bother to clean the house for a few weeks, you'll notice that it's really messy. Then you take an afternoon, clean it up (i.e. put work into the system of your house) and increase its orderliness. A decrease in entropy in one part of the universe does not mean that there must be a corresponding increase somewhere else, or vice versa.
Applying this to our evolutionary discussion: if energy is added to random atoms, they could create amino acids. But first, the correct elements must be present; second, the energy present must work in such a way to connect the elements in the right way. There is no evidence that lightning, thermal heat, etc. would ever create amino acids in that way, especially in an early earth atmosphere. Then, that same energy force would have to combine the amino acids into proteins, it would have to create RNA, cellular membranes, mitochondria, protoplasm, cilia, etc., all of which are much more complex, and therefore much more unlikely to spontaneously form. Then these things would all have to be combined in just the right combination, in an environment in which the living thing would not be destroyed. As has been said before, the odds of this happening are so infitesimally small as to be indistinguishable from zero.

And you miss my point about the law of entropy. Don't be so sure that it is a constant of nature. The question of the constancy of the speed of light is currently being questioned. In some instance light has been slowed down by just a fraction. I believe Einstein showed us the error in believing in something 100%.

The speed of light in a vacuum has always been shown to be the constant c: 3.0 x 10^8 m/s. Light will slow ever so slightly in other mediums (liquids, for example). But the value of c is the same for all observers, regardless of speed.