Evolution

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Captain-Communist, May 2, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    This gets much more civil very soon or it gets locked.

  2. Olivier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 2
    dark_brooks:

    Living things are definitely closed systems.
    How you could possibly suggest otherwise indicates an ignorance on your part regarding the subject matter upon which you are trying to render comment


    Living systems are closed systems? So you don't eat, drink, breath, etc?

    Ask any biologist on earth, Dark_brooks, they'll all tell you that living "things" are definitely open systems. I won't even comment on your accusation of ignorance... I don't want the thread to be closed.
  3. Captain-Communist Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 24, 2002
    star 3
  4. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Well, Oliver,


    Dr. Andrew McIntosh, PhD., who has contributed chapters to over 10 textbooks is one of my sources regarding the universe being a closed system.

    Dr. John M. Cimbala PhD., senior visiting research scientistist at the NASA Langley Research Center, is another one of my sources.

    I can offer a few more if you like, but the point is that they are certainly qualified highly educated academic voices, and it is partially from their writings that I have made my statements.

    If you like, we can discuss this further.


    Allow me to point out as well, that if we want to debate what is an open and closed system, eventually you might overcome my suggestion for everything as contained in a macrocosmically large enclosed system. Probably sooner than later.

    This 'suggestion' was intended to spark discussion of the subject, a bit of a challenge to reinvigorate a subject already gone over previously, and maybe bring in a little new thought, if even venturing into an intellectual exercise in the unorthodox.

    What you won't overcome, is that the
    2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't just apply to closed systems, as seemed to be the premise of the former statements reinitiating this aspect of discussion.

    "Living systems are closed systems? So you don't eat, drink, breath, etc?"

    Automobiles don't need fuel? It's air filters don't need to 'breathe'?

    Metals corrode, machines breakdown, bodies deteriorate, living organisms die.

    "A closed system: a system whose behavior or is entirely explainable from within, a system without input. Systems may be variously closed to matter/ENERGY, to information, and/or to organization. Systems closed to energy are autark, systems closed to information are independent, and systems closed to organization are autonomous. Biological organisms are largely closed to organization, the latter being specified by the dna at the point of inception. The output has nothing to do with whether a system is closed. "


    I thought it might be an interesting exercise to debate over ideas of closed and open systems. AS mentioned already, in previous posts, I was tired of going over the same old stagnant material that we've been through in the last 1,000 posts, my statements were meant mainly to challenge these ideas. I believe there is room for discussion. Peez will no doubt respond, and as it is a response to his recent assertions to begin with, it is on topic, and helps me to avoid hearing the tiresome, "please stay on topic." ;)

    And, it is on topic. In substantiating the validity of the bearing of The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics where it's premise addresses evolutionary descent ideas, the 2nd Law becomes legitimately open to discussion. This is certainly more thought provoking and interesting than presenting dictionary definitions of commonly understood words like "observation." Who knows, inadvertantly Pez may strike a nugget somewhere in this lengthy discourse worth a paper or two for publication in a scientific journal. I've tried to intersperse a few concepts throughout this lesson in futility that he might find interesting enough to intellectually play with, although I don't think he's noticed. Although, I don't see any of probable potential in this particular line. All it takes is a single unorthodox thesis to set a career ablaze (i.e., punk eek). Often something obvious but overlooked.



  5. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Metals corrode, machines breakdown, bodies deteriorate, living organisms die.

    It might be useful to note that metals don't corrode in and of themselves. Galvanic reactions, rust, etc. occur as a result of metals interacting with other elements/compounds. (e.g. rust is oxidized iron... a galvanic reaction occurs only as a result of wet, corroded leads...which do not get wet or spontaneously corrode on their own).

    I also do not know of a single example of an organism that can be isolated entirely from its environment to be exhibited as surviving in a "closed system" for very long at all. Every organism is dependent upon other elements, minerals, compounds, and/or other organisms... whereby the very condition of life requires transcendence from a closed system in this sense. In addition, decomposition occurs largely as a result of other organisms consuming the decomposing one in question...

    If some scientists out of thousands disagree with that... that doesn't make their viewpoints the definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... which, it might be useful to note, did not ever come into this discussion except as a semantic mechanism to attempt to distract us away from the the mounds of evidence favoring evolution theory. I might note I know of at least one scientist who is still exploring the concept of aether... whereby most scientists disagree with him. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but it doesn't mean his ideas are based upon the most widely-accepted definitions of space and cold, dark matter.

    The underlying principle of the 2nd Law has to do with how we have observed the tendency of energy in closed systems to move from condensed to diffused states. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not deal with the living world in this way... many people ignore the fact that the 2LoT is a tendency, not a prediction, of what can happen immediately in a closed system.

    The evolution of complex hydrocarbon-based life, which are themselves open systems, is theorized in Natural Selection to be dependent upon an open system... the environment. Evolution theory is not suggesting anything akin to the diffusation of energy in a closed system.
  6. Olivier Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 2
    Darth_brooks (btw, I just noticed I made a mistake in your alias in my latest post. My apologies)

    What you won't overcome, is that the
    2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't just apply to closed systems, as seemed to be the premise of the former statements reinitiating this aspect of discussion.


    Actually, this wasn't a premise of my latest post, where I only commented on your claim that "living things are closed systems". Although I didn't follow this thread too closely, I think this has been covered often enough. Yet this statement about living things being closed systems seemed so wrong to me that I couldn't resist ;)
    So I'll limit my comments to this aspect of the discussion.


    "Living systems are closed systems? So you don't eat, drink, breath, etc?"

    Automobiles don't need fuel? It's air filters don't need to 'breathe'?

    Metals corrode, machines breakdown, bodies deteriorate, living organisms die.


    Automobile indeed need fuel, and that's the reason why I (along with every scientists I've heard or read so far) consider them open systems...


    "A closed system: a system whose behavior or is entirely explainable from within, a system without input.


    By this definition (that YOU quoted), since a living organism has inputs, it is not a (totally) closed system. And even if you distinguish between matter/energy and information, calling it simply "closed" as you did suggests that it is closed to any kind of input, which is not the case.

    Now I suppose that there is indeed room for discussion concerning this distinction between energy and information. I suppose that you (or your sources) apply the "thermodynamic" version of the 2dn law to energy/matter, and a version relating to the theory of information to , well, information :), and then conclude that if the ToE "breaks" any of those laws, it has a serious problem.
    I've seen this approach a few times already, but I've never seen any conclusive argument that there was any kind of incompatibility of the ToE with thermodynamics or information theory.

    But I don't have enough time to discuss it, so I'll switch back to lurker mode and let you an others go on with this thread. My final thought concerning your claim ("Living things are definitely closed systems.") is that:
    _ if you meant that living things are closed systems as regards matter and energy (which is the common meaning of closed in physics), the you're definitely wrong
    _ if you only refered to information, then... your claim sure seemed misleading, and probably was for many people :)


  7. phantomwaver Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 26, 2002
    star 1
    THE INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN VS. THE BLUE GENIE, (continued from page 49)

    Peez Wrote:

    I could spend the rest of my life making such explanations, but nothing would change. I believe that you should ask yourself why so many (virtually all) biologists, the people who have actually discovered all that complexity, think that the theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for the fact of common descent.

    Why is this a problem? If the eye and the blood clotting system and the complement system did not change your mind, why would an explanation of this make any difference?



    (Parable Recap . . .)

    The Invisible Pink Unicornists scratched their heads in perplexed dismay. "I guess we Invisible Pink Unicornists don't understand how science works. But, we'll give it one more shot. While a tree can live a long time and have its roots grow inch by inch - it still seems incredible if not impossible that any tree - without the help of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, - or at least some thus far unexplained natural process, could have roots long enough to stretch all the way under or around (take your pick) the grand canyon."

    "It is just too far; would take too long; encounter too much opposition; and require too much energy. We just don't understand."

    TO BE CONTINUED...

    CONTINUATION

    "I could spend the rest of my life making such explanations," said the Blue
    Genie, "but nothing would change. I believe that you should ask yourself why so many (virtually all) Blue Geniests, the people who have actually studied trees and roots for a very long time, think that "problems" like this have repeatedly been adequately explained."

    "But this particular situation, with the roots of a tree growing all the way under or around the Grand Canyon, (take your pick), seems somehow different than those previously explained situations," said the Invisible Pink Unicornists, "It just seems that it is too far; would take too long; encounter too much opposition; and require too much energy."

    "Why is this a problem?" said the Blue Genie. "I have said that, just like the theory of gravity makes my calcultor come back down when I throw it in the air, (he demonstrates this again), the tree grows inch by inch, year by year, why do you need further explanation?"

    "Let's try one more time," said the Invisible Pink Unicornists, after some contemplation. "In order for a tree to stay alive, don't nutrients or water or something "scientific" from the root ends on the one side of the Canyon have to be able to flow or be transmitted (or something "scientific") all the way to the tree proper on the other side?"

    "Isn't there some "scientific" point at which the root ends and the tree are separated by a distance that is too far; so that the transmission would take too long; encounter too much opposition; and require too much energy.? So that your explanation of the tree having the ability to grow 'inch by inch,' and 'year by year'; and the fact that the tree is alive and exists doesn't adequately explain what is occurring in this situation,?" - asked the Invisible Pink Unicornists?

    TO BE CONTINUED....

    PW




  8. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Something to contemplate.

    If evolution is not possible... why should we even find this giant a developmental leap in the human genome?

    This, like the UCSD HOX Gene studies I've cited on numerous occasions, seem to corroborate and confirm a growing trend of discovery that single mutations are capable of pretty drastic developmental changes. As phantomwaver so astutely has observed, where precisely is the evidence that suggests something can walk 100 feet but is magically inhibited from walking 100 yards?

    As technology continues to advance, if evolution did not occur, we should not continue to find more and more evidence demonstrating the ability for large-scale variations to be facilitated as a result of singular mutations. In addition, the fact that one single mutation in musculoskeletal strucuture has affected so many other aspects of development should not go unnoticed.

    If evolution does not occur, we should, in fact, find more and more evidence of the opposite... or at least no correlation or causative implications whatsoever between genes and large-scale mutagenesis. Because we know that genes facilitate inherited mutations, and we know that large-scale mutageneses occur as a result of these genes, what on earth prohibits genes from facilitating evolution? Where is the evidence?
  9. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Snow_Dog,

    With all due respect, please, please, send an e-mail to the scientist, McGinnis, at San Diego, and get him to explain the news paper article that you've yet to fully understand.

    Removing a species legs does not make it another species.

    A Vietnam veteran who lost his legs in a boobie-trap is still a human being, not an arthropod. Either in that conflict or 400 million years ago.


    I would also go back and reread your sources books on mutations, what is actually observed, and what is speculated that never seems to occur when anyone is watching. Important, realistic, differences.


    Experiments were done using literally thousands of generations of fruit flys, and only non-beneficial, usually deadly harmful mutations occured before the experiment was simply ended. No evolution.

    ASk yourself, no need to answer me, if there are any transitional specimens to link arthropods and modern fruit flys? Is there any rational reason for indicating that this change occured 400 million years ago? That's a pretty specific date; how was it arrived at? There's a lot of neatly phrased extrapolitive terminology like "could" an so on. "Could" equates to an "if".
    'If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.'
  10. Captain-Communist Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 24, 2002
    star 3
    Evolution yeehooo kick ass. Its hecka cool this Evolution.
  11. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Thermodynamics Ad Nauseam Part 1


    Hopefully, although lengthy, everyone will deign to see fit to read this series of posts in order to sufficiently put the import of Thermodynamics against evolution to rest in a snug bed. It is a major challenge, one of many, to evolutionary descent by modification.





    This is an article from TrueOrigin.com



    The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end. This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:

    The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world. (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)
    While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only ?problem? is that creationists ?misunderstand? real thermodynamics.


    This strategy is exemplified in Frank Steiger?s Thermodynamics FAQs in the Talk.Origins Archive, one title of which (?Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics?) may be said to better describe the ?how-to? nature of his text than his case against the creationist writers he wishes to discredit.

    Steiger accuses creationists of having created ?voodoo? thermodynamics based solely on metaphors, and provides Talk.Origins readers with a detailed, albeit error-ridden, treatise on the subject. But while he may appear to have a handle on the mathematics and applied science of thermodynamics, Steiger himself steps out of the realm of scientific knowledge to defend the standard dogma of the evolutionist faith, using his own metaphors and semantic smoke and mirrors to make evolutionism appear immune to the best established scientific law known to man.

    The purpose of this document is twofold:

    1.)To adequately familiarize the reader with the true scientific nature and ramifications of thermodynamics, as documented by leading non-creationist scientists.

    2.)To document and dispel for the reader such common pseudo-scientific evolutionist errors as those perpetuated in Steiger?s essays, and elsewhere.
    To accomplish this aim, the subject matter shall be presented in the following consecutive sections within one document:

    .Understanding Thermodynamics

    .The Evolutionist?s Spin

    .Both Cannot Be Correct


    Every effort has been made to explain the matters addressed in this document as simply and understandably as possible. While matters of science can sometimes seem beyond comprehension, the aim here has been clarity, yet without oversimplifying where the details truly matter.


  12. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Thermodynamics Ad Nauseam Part 2



    Understanding Thermodynamics


    The essence of Classical Thermodynamics concerns itself with the relationship between:

    1.)heat
    2.)mechanical energy (or work-ready energy)
    and
    3.)the conversion of either of these into the other


    All matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subject--without exception--to the first and second laws of thermodynamics --hereafter, simply "the first law" and "the second law".
    While the properties of heat and useable energy may not seem particularly significant in a debate concerning origins, the first and second laws (which govern those properties and their transformations) speak profoundly to the nature of matter, energy, and therefore the universe itself. Within the realm of science, these are among the most immovable, universal laws of science, as the following scientific authorities testify:

    "[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of it basic concepts will never be overthrown."
    [Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, ?Thermodynamics in Einstein?s Universe?, in Science, 157 (1967), p. 509 and in Isaac Asimov?s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.]


    "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles."
    [Harold Blum, Time?s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.]

    "If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation."
    [Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.]

    "The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy."
    [G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.]

    "There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude. On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances."
    [A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.]

    "Although it is true that the amount of matter in the universe is perpetually changing, the change appears to be mainly in one direction--toward dissolution . The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere the cosmos heart is turning to cold; matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space.

    "The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ?heat death? or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ?maximum entropy? . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny. For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible. Nature moves only one way."

    [Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.]

    "...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics...."
    [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

    Having had a glimpse at the signific
  13. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Thermodynamics Ad Nauseam Part 3


    The Evolutionist?s Spin


    Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

    Beginning with the "Big Bang" and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship--down to every atom, molecule, and beyond--is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

    This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists? speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that--again, in violation of the second law--within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

    Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular "community members" which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.

    Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second law?s demand for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living organism built itself.

    Evolutionism takes its greatest pride in applying this same brand of speculation to the classic Darwinian hypothesis in which all known biological life is said to have descended (by means of virtually infinite--yet random--additional increases in organized complexity) from that first hypothesized single-celled organism. This process, it is claimed, is directly responsible for the existence of (among other things) the human being.


    Details, Details...


    Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, it?s the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs.

    To be sure, many corollary hypotheses have been produced to show how one or another biological or geological phenomenon--or an empirical fact gathered in any scientific discipline--might be explained in evolutionary terms (often not without the use of highly convoluted, incredible, and unprovable stories). But as Karl Popper observed, a theory that seems to explain everything really explains nothing. Popper insisted that a theory?s true explanatory power comes from making narrowly defined, risky predictions--success in prediction being meaningful only to the extent that failure is a real possibility in the first place. Evolutionists find ways to explain and/or produce after-the-fact "predictions" for any and every empirical fact or phenomenon presented to them--frequently ignoring established standards for logic and scientific method.

    In the same manner, many evolutionists are so convinced of evolution as a "fact" that they are compelled to either ignore or dismiss the applicability of the second law to biological processes. The presupposition of evolution as "fact" leav
  14. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Thermodynamics Ad Nauseam Part 4

    Both Cannot be Correct

    That someone is practicing "voodoo" thermodynamics is not at issue here. The question is who? The following statements--complete with metaphors(!)--from respected (evolutionist) scientists don?t seem to reflect Steiger?s perspective, effectively indicating that it is he who has resorted to distorting and perverting the true nature of thermodynamics in order to convince his readers that his naturalistic religious views have scientific validity:

    "The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology."
    [C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

    "We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life?s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed."
    [G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

    "Closely related to the apparent ?paradox? of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent ?paradox? of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays fro which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one."
    [J.W. Patterson, Scientists Confront Creationism, L:R: Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]


    We are faced with a choice between accepting the universal applicability of the laws of thermodynamics as generally understood, or believing that the likes of Frank Steiger are justified in their efforts to drive a wedge of semantic confusion between those laws and the postulates of evolutionism.

    We have seen that (contrary to Steiger?s false accusations) the principles of thermodynamics are neither ignored nor altered by those creationists who describe them as universally applicable, demonstrating their relationships with biological processes.

    We have seen how Steiger has repeatedly attempted to blur the distinction between dramatically different processes; has denied the applicability of thermodynamics to heat and work relationships within biological processes; has ignored the applicability of informational entropy and statistical entropy to the biological processes and properties of all living organisms; has falsely attributed obviously erroneous statements to creationist publications; and has generally turned a blind eye to the challenge posed to evolutionism by the realities of thermodynamic principles.

    It must be emphasized that Frank Steiger is not alone. The above practices are not uncommon among many hard-core evolutionists. Whether theirs is at all a reasonable, rational faith seems clear in the methodologies they employ in its defence. The plain facts of science will remain neither ignored nor hidden in
  15. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Removing a species legs does not make it another species.

    A Vietnam veteran who lost his legs in a boobie-trap is still a human being, not an arthropod. Either in that conflict or 400 million years ago.


    Darth_Brooks: I am eagerly awaiting the day when you stop misrepresenting studies to help build your case.

    You know damn well that there is a difference between someone having their legs forcibly blown from their body, a most unfortunate accident, and a mutation which causes successive generations to be born with fewer appendages, and most specifically, only without abdominal appendages.

    If you insist on consistently painting kindergartenish analogies for the express purpose of making it look as if scientists deliberately arrived at false interpretations (as if there were a bunch of guys in white coats sitting around at UCSD, laboriously plucking the legs off arthropods, in a devious attempt to falsify support for macroevolutionary processes), it only speaks volumes of the lengths you are willing to go to win your argument which has yet to be based on any research testing the hypotheses you claim to be true.

    Are you openly choosing to misinform, just as certain Creationists and Intelligent Design "theorists", who deliberately prey on the scientific ignorance of the average American?

    If there's any reason that people would believe the mangled analogy you give in regards to the UCSD study, or any other study you willfully choose to misrepresent for the express purpose of winning an argument, it's perhaps because, according to a recent survey conducted by the National Science Foundation, 50 percent of Americans are not aware that Earth revolves around the Sun, and that is the standard from which the year is derived.

    It is also useful to note that, in a 1996 study conducted by John A. Bates and Jeffrey Ickes of Alaska Pacific University, titled Personality, Cognitive and Academic Factors Associated with Contradictory Pseudoscientific Belief, published in the National Social Science Journal (Vol. 14, #2, 2000) attempting to understand the dichotomous nature of philosophically incompatible claims about the nature of reality... from domains as disparate as fundamentalist Christianity and New Age fantastic science, it was concluded:

    The present study also replicated previous demonstrations of decreased belief in pseudoscientific claims in general as a function of increased exposure to social/behavioral science coursework. Other factors found to contribute to pseudoscientific belief included age, sex, and religious perspective.

    In addition, I lament the fact that you, in the absence of real scientific data supporting your hypotheses, have to resort to various pseudoscientific misdirections of the definitions which apply to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If this is how science is done... by debating definitions instead of gathering data, then we should perhaps all believe that the earth is flat, because of some vague reference in a book that could be, from some outrageous point of view, interpreted to mean that the earth is flat... completely ignoring all the data that indicates that it is not so.

    Living things are not, for the umpteenth time, closed systems... nor does the dissipation of concentrated energy in a closed or open system make it certain that chemical compounds must shift from organized to disorganized states over time. Nor does it hold that evolution represents necessarily life moving from order to disorder, or from disorder to order.

    Scientists study to gain data and facts, and do not spend the bulk of their time trying to debunk by hearsay and interpretation. If there is evidence that life was intelligently designed, present it. If there is evidence that evolution does not occur, what then did occur, how did it occur, when did it occur, why did it occur, and by what means did it occur?

    The state of scientific education is lousy enough in this country without people
  16. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Snow-Dog,

    LOL!!!

    I point out you're consistent misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the info out from McGinnis regarding hox, which you tiresomely reintroduce periodically, and you come back talking to me about misrepresentations of science.

    This is called tit-for-tat.

    The rest of your post was ad hoc and ad hominem inuendo. And the one small consolation for you is that it didn't pass misunderstood, even though it was misrepresentation.

    You obviously didn't read a word in the Thermodynamics posts above or previously posted info, paying special attention to disregard/ignore the exquisitely qualified sources of that information.

    They are scientists Snow-Dog, degree'd, competent scientists, involved in fields of expertise related to thermodynamics. You already know that.

    If you felt kindergarten was in session, more's the pity; I can only attempt reason but to whatever rung is left down upon the shakey ladder. While I can appreciate a level of intelligence possessed, objectivity and impartiality seem wired to a light switch.

    I saw no specific legitimate bone of contention you had to pick with the above arguments, or with the words of Dr. Ker Thomson previously posted at length a month or so ago, or however long it's been. Attention spans are short, and much is forgotten that ought not to have been forgotten, to borrow from LOTR.

    I don't know what your credentials are, But Thomson was the Director of the US Airforces Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory, holding degrees in Physics and geology, and professorship at Baylor University.

    I doubt sincerely that he is a "pseudo-scientist," and your non-specific complaints seem only like reasonless denial in the face of uncomfortable facts.

    Tim Wallace's work dealing with Steiger is pretty self-evident, and to date, so far as I know Steiger has had the sense to remain schooled. Others who've sought to redeem him have been shut out, no complaint being meritorious to date. I made comments regarding open and closed systems to provoke examinations, knowing full well in confidence the inevitable conclusion in advance, and that is simply all discussion merely delays the inevitable fact that open or closed systems matter not to the 2nd Law. It applies.

    BTW, you never have directly answered those questions, only conspicuously disappearing shortly after they were presented.


  17. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Ad Nauseam Interruptus

    Indulge me a little whimsy in streaming flows in regard to steaming flows of conciousness.

    By now it should be abundantly clear that the problem presented by the 2nd Law, as it overcomes the '2nd Flaw of Thermodynamics', is appreciably unrelenting in it's devastating impact upon the improbable petulance of Synthetic, Neo-Darwinian, Darwinian, de-evolutionary uncommon descent by continual remodification theories (in the good old fashioned use of the word), basically rendered null and void.

    And as has been illustrated by the continual modification of the elastic "theory" it is by implication synonymously just a regular, common, run-of-the-mill theory. Playing hide and seek with the invisable man. We see footprints, and because we see no one to have imprinted them into the sod, then it is probable they must/may have been caused by the invisable man.

    1.)If the invisable man exists/existed he would've made footprints and we would expect to see no physical body to have made those prints.

    2.)As predicted, we've found foot prints without a physical body observed making them.

    This is falsifiable, and thusly valid.

    And over time we will certainly theoretically assert a whole zoology of invisable fauna initiated by the invisable pink unicorn (which's hoof-prints are arguably observed in pastures globally).

    Now, one definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over in the expectation of different results, so, I certainly expect no concessions in regard to the power of the 2nd Law. No, not when there are still viable handy counterpoints such as circular obstinate denial, ignoring the significance, or indirect ad hoc rebuttals (if any of this seems synonymous, that is sheer coincidence to protect the identities of the guilty, or politically correct innocent). Closure seems an imponderable.

    That the Gestapo subsidiary was a fractional minority of the German population under the authoritarian fascist Nazi Regime during the 30's and 40's, didn't hinder their dictatorial ability to forcefully sway majority opinion or action. And, they had swingingly hip investiture, sharp uniforms, and it is better to look 'mah-velous,' than to feel 'mah-velous'. Majority correlation does not legitimize popular conceptualization of materialistic causation. You can quote me.

    It is a repetitiously tired historically-worn truism that majority consensus is often destructively worthless, and oblivious to woes until instance of revelatory hindsight. But, it doesn't really matter because the cycle is still underway. Goebbels followed by Mengele, ever ever on. The head and tail of Uroboros.



    So, I remain ever yours, steadfast here amongst the beleaguered ranks of the stalwart underdogs.

    A showing of hands: The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T.(Terwilliker).
    Raise your hand: Morticia Addams rearing Thing (that doesn't sound right), the disembodied hand.

    Typing I noticed my snappy fingers dancing across the keys, and marveled to know that from fingers, came evolution. It all started somewhere, maybe the middle-finger, as that is the one most often associated with reproduction and also academia, signaling the praise of ole alma mater Ef(fete).U(niversity).. But 400 gazillion years ago we can be relatively certain, that one of the hands, no doubt the right one, by time and chance, for no particular purpose, developed wrists, and then forearms, then subsequently progressed (can I use the word progressed, as nothing is higher or lower? Evolution is politically correct) up into the shoulders, torso, stomach, legs, feet, and then doubtlessly a mouth to assist the stomach, and so on and so forth until the brain. Aren't brains always the last thing to develop? Was it gradualism done in degrees or graduated done in degrees?

    And this brings us to one of the problems. The higher (or is it highest?) cost of education; aren't we all paying for it. After having the chance to enroll and with so much time invested at uni(one)versity(word) we end up with so much ironic obsequious incoherent
  18. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    For Snow-Dog



    "Darth_Brooks: I am eagerly awaiting the day when you stop misrepresenting studies to help build your case."

    And I'm eagerly awaiting the day the lock on your objectivity and impartiality is finally picked open or rusts off.

    "You know damn well that there is a difference between someone having their legs forcibly blown from their body, a most unfortunate accident, and a mutation which causes successive generations to be born with fewer appendages, and most specifically, only without abdominal appendages."

    That is loss of information not gain. That is not macro-evolution.


    "If you insist on consistently painting kindergartenish analogies for the express purpose of making it look as if scientists deliberately arrived at false interpretations..."

    I tried putting it the simplest terms possible since all else has failed.

    My words had nothing to do with "scientists" but only with your
    misinterpretation of what those articles state.


    "...(as if there were a bunch of guys in white coats sitting around at UCSD, laboriously plucking the legs off arthropods, in a devious attempt to falsify support for macroevolutionary processes),"

    I never said anything of the kind, so your words are "deviously" more than an exaggeration.


    "..it only speaks volumes of the lengths you are willing to go to win your argument which has yet to be based on any research testing the hypotheses you claim to be true."

    Please support this "devious" allegation, which speaks volumes in reference to your own integrity in this matter.


    "Are you openly choosing to misinform, just as certain Creationists and Intelligent Design "theorists", who deliberately prey on the scientific ignorance of the average American?"

    Please list specific names and documentation to support your unfounded ad hominem. Another unsupported glittering generality. At least you are consistent.


    "If there's any reason that people would believe the mangled analogy you give in regard to the UCSD study,..."

    That reason would most probably be because you constantly exaggerate or misunderstand clearly written articles, confusing mere conjectures/speculations with what you think (or wish) has actually been performed in a lab somewhere; to whit, turning arthropods into flies. Hasn't been done, not even close by a light year.


    ".. or any other study you willfully choose to misrepresent for the express purpose of winning an argument,.."

    Exactly what you have done in stating that the arthropods mentioned in the article have actually been mutated into flies back when you first introduced these articles on homeobox experimentation by McGinnis. That's a total fabrication based on an article that used arthropod to flies as an example of what they hope hox will reveal.


    "..it's perhaps because, according to a recent survey conducted by the National Science Foundation, 50 percent of Americans are not aware that Earth revolves around the Sun, and that is the standard from which the year is derived."

    I'd love to know how such figures are arrived at statistically? Were the patients at an autism clinic surveyed to get these conclusions?

    Regardless, your comment is off-topic and pointless.
    Argument to authority. It's one of 7 major forms of propaganda. That may be the standard for which the year is arrived, but it is not a standard by which my analogy is subject.



    "It is also useful to note that, in a 1996 study conducted by John A. Bates and Jeffrey Ickes of Alaska Pacific University, titled Personality, Cognitive and Academic Factors Associated with Contradictory Pseudoscientific Belief, published in the National Social Science Journal (Vol. 14, #2, 2000) attempting to understand the dichotomous nature of philosophically incompatible claims about the nature of reality... from domains as disparate as fundamentalist Christianity and New Age fantastic science, it was concluded:

    The present study also replicated previous demonstrations of decreased belief in pseudoscientific claims in general as a function
  19. Chris2 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 4
    Here's a related question-how do the 'world ages' fit into the Judaeo-Christian mold? I'm speaking mainly about the Cambrian, Mezozoic, Paleolithic, Neolithic etc. eras....can these still fit in a biblical model? It seems that the thousand year era between Eden and the flood remains a sort of 'mystery era' of sorts, with all we know being that mankind apparentally mated with angels and there were giants of some kind roaming around....

    Any thoughts?






  20. Chris2 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 4
    One more little add-on here:


    -why don't we see any living transitional forms?-


    It's often stated that Amphibions are sort of transitional between fish and reptiles-they have features of both. Also, creatures such as Lemurs seem to be a transition between rodents and monkeys-or something of that fashion.
    It's interesting to note that nearly every prehistoric animal has a modern equavilent. So either these creatures filled a evolutionary niche' of some kind, or God decided that the reptiles should do the same thing the mammals do, except of course have nipples, live births, and fur.

    For instance:

    Ceratopsians=Rhino
    Ornithomimids=Ostrichs/Emus etc.
    Dromaeosaurs=Tigers, Lions etc. Carnosaurs can also fit into this.
    Segnosaurs=Sloths
    Sauropods=Giraffes
    Ornithopods=Deer,Cattle
    Pterosaurs=Birds
    Plesiosaurs/Mosasaurs=Whales

    And perhaps the strongest example:

    Icthyosaurs=Dolphins(With maybe some Shark characteristics thrown in)

    So how could these co-exist with mammals, if the particular niches had already been filled?
  21. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Darth_Brooks: Exactly what you have done in stating that the arthropods mentioned in the article have actually been mutated into flies

    Please cite the specific instance where I said that arthropods were turned into, specifically, flies. I'm certain that if there were weight to this accusation, you would not have hesitated to post the precise words I used. The last time you were unable to produce the "damning evidence" that it was I who misrepresented something, you, predictably, could not resurrect the exact passage in which I had made such a false statement... and this not being consistent with your style, I knew you were unable to produce the words in question because they were, in fact, not uttered by me in the fashion in which you had alleged.

    I will be the first to admit that it is possible that either I confused the issue, or you misunderstood, when I cited two separate instances of experimentation, one using fruit flies and the UCSD study using the crustaceans... and the two have somehow been jumbled in your memory... but in no instance have I actually alleged that the crustacean species artemia were mutated specifically into flies.

    I would also like to note, briefly as it is not a big issue but still noteworthy, that flies are, in fact, arthropods. Therefore, I'm doubly unsure why I would claim arthropods are mutated into flies, anyway. I did state that the crustaceans producing offspring carrying the mutated HOX gene, which resulted in their lacking abdominal appendages, for all intents and purposes, could be classified as insects by means of their phenotype, as is generally the case with insect classification... insects are physically characterized by the absence of abdominal appendages. If you have another definition of what makes an insect an insect, by all means, do present it for us.

    I do recall stating that the offspring produced were, in effect, classifiable as insects because of their phenotype.

    Either post the evidence that I made, precisely, this allegation, that arthropods were turned into flies, in particular, or apologize for deliberately misrepresenting my statements and move on with whatever arguments you have to present.

    In my second-to-last post, I never established for the audience exactly what the UCSD conclusions were, for the express purpose of letting people arrive at their own conclusions... which I believe most people are fully capable of interpreting on their own however they see fit.

    That is loss of information not gain. That is not macro-evolution.

    This statement alone makes it abundantly clear that you do not understand evolution. What "information" is being lost? Wasn't it clear from the UCSD study that the HOX gene controlling appendage development was not removed from the subject, but the ubx protein was mutated? A loss of limbs isn't the same thing as a loss of information. The loss of limbs was caused by a change in information, not a loss of it. The quantity of DNA coding, including the master HOX gene and its constituents, were not reduced.

    If a protein is changed by causing its amino acid pairs to be changed through mutation, the number of amino acids that constitute the instruction set does not change. In other words, if I cause protein X to change from AGCT to CGAT amino acid sets, that might turn off a subset of genes controlled by it... but that doesn't eliminate the master gene or any of the genes that are inactivated by the mutation.

    Survival is not always facilitated by an increase in information. If this twisted perception were the basis for the accepted definition of evolution, then scientists would be aghast at themselves... wondering how on earth the human species could have proliferated so successfully, and be one of the most significant branchings in mammalian evolution if it lacks opposable tarsal digits, and lacks many of the features (or "information") possessed by our proposed predecessors. If the increase of information were the sole path of evolution, scientists wou
  22. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Chris 2,

    "Here's a related question-how do the 'world ages' fit into the Judaeo-Christian mold? I'm speaking mainly about the Cambrian, Mezozoic, Paleolithic, Neolithic etc. eras....can these still fit in a biblical model? It seems that the thousand year era between Eden and the flood remains a sort of 'mystery era' of sorts, with all we know being that mankind apparentally mated with angels and there were giants of some kind roaming around...."

    "Any thoughts?"


    Oohhh, yeah, I've gotta bunch. What do I know, I'm just a layman.

    But I only have a couple of minutes, so I'll throw out some thoughts pell-mell, and try to get back in the next couple of days.

    Some of my ideas are strictly my own, but, as far as I know there is nothing to contradict them. Much of my thinking lately has been centered around concepts of time and gravitational time distortions. There has just been some publicity given to c-decay recently, which is notable mostly due to it's validation of a creationist's research by non-creationists.

    There are a couple of ways to come at this subject.

    Certainly one has to do with physics and the age of the universe. Time is essential for their to have been any "world ages," and thusly bears impact upon assumptions regarding the stratigraphy of the geologic column. And our knowledge and dating techniques are built on assumptions.

    An analogy that may be useful:

    A man builds a house on Wednesday, using trees that were mature on Monday. On Saturday you and I examine the house. I conclude the house is as old as Wednesday because of a journal the builder left behind. From you examination's results you conclude the house is as old as Monday. Two approaches and two interpretations of the same data. In one sense we are both correct and in one sense we are both wrong.

    Neither of us have all the data, and so long as our methodologies are kept mutually exclusive we never will.


    Regarding the Cambrian, Neolithic, Mexoxoic, etc., they can certainly fit into a Biblical model. Honestly though, I'm not convinced that our current interpretations on the available info on those ages is correct.

    Anyway, I'll get back as I'm able.
  23. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Snow_Dog,

    "Either post the evidence that I made, precisely, this allegation, that arthropods were turned into flies, in particular, or apologize for deliberately misrepresenting my statements and move on with whatever arguments you have to present."

    Well, I'm going to do neither. If you weren't clear, as you say, then I'm not going to bother to apologize. Further, I have no interest in digging back through all these posts to pull it out for the sake of continued back and forth arguments. Not at this moment anyway. Tomorrow, who knows.


    "This statement alone makes it abundantly clear that you do not understand evolution."

    Spare us both.


    "What "information" is being lost? Wasn't it clear from the UCSD study that the HOX gene controlling appendage development was not removed from the subject, but the ubx protein was mutated? A loss of limbs isn't the same thing as a loss of information. The loss of limbs was caused by a change in information, not a loss of it. The quantity of DNA coding, including the master HOX gene and its constituents, were not reduced."

    I could argue with you on mutations, just so you know. But I don't have the time at the moment.
    More significant, is that you've basically reiterated what I said earlier, only you've missed my point somehow.


    "Survival is not always facilitated by an increase in information. "

    Never said it was. You're arguing with yourself.

    "If the increase of information were the sole path of evolution, scientists would have already turned in the towel... perceiving human evolution as entirely illogical in the face of this "increase in information" that you believe is requisite to evolution."



    No one said it was. But 'evolutionarily' speaking the paradigm is built on increases of information. If you're trying to argue that all information for all life existed complete within a bacterium at the very beginning of evolution and there has been no increase since, only varieties of mutations, then, what can I say. More power to you.



    "Your statement also suggests that you believe the theory of evolution proposes that evolution occurs in a linear fashion, disallowing multiplicities of evolutionary mutations... simultaneous increases and decreases of information, some manifesting physically, others not, some being advantageous, others not."

    I never said that. But that schema has some legitimacy in the term "common descent." You're confusing yourself.

    The fact is abundantly clear that I don't subscribe to evolutionary common descent by modification.

    And if there is no "fixed schema," to any degree, how can you suggest evolution is falsifiable? You understand the implication here.


    I'm going to step out on a limb here, because I'm tired, and give the benefit of the doubt that I misunderstood your words here.
  24. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    I have been reading a great book on evolution by Dr. Ernst Mayr called What Evolution Is.

    Dr. Mayr states on page 12 that "Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurance of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentrcity, evolution had to be also considered a fact."

    Some time ago I posted that that Evolution was for all practical purposes considered a fact. I was thrilled to see a leading researcher in the field say the same thing.

  25. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Well, I'm going to do neither. If you weren't clear, as you say, then I'm not going to bother to apologize. Further, I have no interest in digging back through all these posts to pull it out for the sake of continued back and forth arguments. Not at this moment anyway. Tomorrow, who knows.

    Then why bring it up, except for the express purpose of trolling?

    No one said it was. But 'evolutionarily' speaking the paradigm is built on increases of information. If you're trying to argue that all information for all life existed complete within a bacterium at the very beginning of evolution and there has been no increase since, only varieties of mutations, then, what can I say. More power to you.

    Oh, that's right... I must have you confused with some other guy who said:

    That is loss of information not gain. That is not macro-evolution.

    You won't apologize for misrepresenting my words, or at the least post a retraction, you aren't even certain I said precisely what you had alleged (if you were, you'd have my exact words handy), and to top it off you're now waffling around the fact that you're specifically attempting to debunk the UCSD study by presuming their experiments caused a loss of information, a false assumption, and secondarily presuming that a loss of information, cannot constitute macroevolution... which is again false.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.