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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. obhavekenobi78 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2002
    star 5
    A small note to add here. Slightly less intellectual than most posts I have read here, but it does involve learned evolution on some small level.

    I recently read of a trend that is obvious if you look around. It seems that the younger generation of children, particularily those of grade school age, have picked up a new ability. These children have developed a finger with a greater amount of dexterity than their predecesors (namely, us). Their thumbs. Don't laugh, think about it for a moment. When you dial a phone, which finger do you most often use? For me and most people my age and older, it is most certainly the index finger or "pointer". For the children stated above it has become the thumb. With the advent of smaller technology, namely cellular phones, pagers, and hand-held video games, the thumb is emerging as the most dextrous digit on the hand. Is it evolution?
  2. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    The author didn't contradict himself, but was in fact pointing out some of the problems with the alleged 29 evidences.
    It seems pretty clear that he is contradicting himself. As I explained before:
    The author just stated that "The genealogical relatedness of all life predicts that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these basic life processes." and now states that "There is no logical reason why completely novel organisms could not arise in one or more lineages."
    These are two mutually exclusive statements, so I cannot see how one can interpret this as anything other than the author contradicting himself.

    Meanwhile, I asked you to
    please explain the thing that allows micro-evolution but prevents macro-evolution.
    Instead of answering, you responded with two questions of your own:
    Please explain to me when and where the macroevolution of a chimp and a human occured [sic] from an alleged, and as yet unidentified common ancestor.
    Better yet, please provide the genealogical tree tracing the development of a modern banana and a modern chimp from a common ancestor.
    I answered these questions with:
    I am not sure of what you mean by "the macroevolution of a chimp and a human". Do you mean when speciation occurred? The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived around six to ten million years ago in Africa. Both chimps and humans have evolved considerably since then, and other speciation events have occurred in that time (in both lineages).
    Just for fun:

    ..........\____________________chimps (and other animals)
    ..............\...................______bananas (and other plants)
    respectively, and then asked:
    Now, will you answer my question about macro-evolution?
    You have posted about 19 times since then, and even asked questions yourself, but you never answered this question. Why?

  3. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Your entropy comment was already addressed previously and refuted by experts in that professional field, a subject which you obviously are not familiar with.
    Not that I have seen. Please tell us where, or post a brief explanation here.
    The solar system is a closed system.
    No it is not, but that is irrelevant here.
    Living things are definitely closed systems.
    Apparently you do not understand the concept of a "closed system" in this context. A "closed system" in thermodynamics is a system that has no energy or matter moving into or out of it. Living things exchange materials and energy with their environment, in fact that is part of most definitions of life that biologists use. If you were completely isolated, incapable of importing oxygen or food, incapable of exporting carbon dioxide or heat, just how long would you last? Minutes.
    How you could possibly suggest otherwise indicates an ignorance on your part regarding the subject matter upon which you are trying to render comment.
    In context, this statement is revealing.
    Of course I probably need not remind you, but it has not ever been proven, despite suspicion to the contrary, that energy, nor information, is not lost. Not to my knowledge.
    I see no point in continuing to beat this dead horse because you simply refuse to address the facts objectively because it apparently interferes with your personal political and religious beliefs.
    I suggest that you learn about the Second Law of Thermodynamics before trying to address this issue. Anyone else reading, if you are unsure please look in a good physics text book, or ask a physicist. You should also ask yourself why physicists are not loudly complaining about biologists teaching something that allegedly contradicts a physical law.
    Furthermore, to elaborate more on this subject is simply repetition, as stated again, as this has already been explained over the course of hundreds of posts.
    I think that you are exaggerating, but in any event nobody has explained how the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution, all I have seen are cartoon versions of that law with an assertion that evolution is impossible.
    The rest of your comments were merely ad hoc, form without substance. You didn't in any way substantiate your comments which were erroneous, other than because 'you say so.' No references.
    Such as...?
    As you stated you haven't bothered to read much of what's been written, it seems analytically careless for you to even bother commenting under such an admission.
    I would not try to imply that I had read something that I had not, it is that simple. The web page in question was so bad that I did not wish to waste my time on it. If you read it, then why don't you copy and paste the part that actually deals with the issue at hand?
    You couldn't possibly know what you were talking about. It then makes perfect sense why you would consider so much to be off-topic in our discussions. Not having read the material, as you stated, renders your opinions not only ineffectual but moot. And your grasp of the 29 evidences article also suggests you didn't bother to read it clearly.
    I don't see why I should read pages and pages of poorly-written, error-filled text to find some alleged part that deals with transitional forms and DNA evidence.
    "All the "qualified experts" that I checked emphatically disagree with what you are trying to make them out as having said."

    No one disagreed. It is a convenience for you to suggest so.
    If I understand you here, you are saying that it is a "contrivance" to suggest that you meant for these quotes to accurately represent what the authors were saying? If so, why did you post the quotes?
    I have no idea what "qualified expert" that yo
  4. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    Darth Brooks

    Please provide a scientific peer-reviewed reference to your astonishing statement that Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The Second Law only applies to an isolated system. The Earth is not an isolated system since the sun provides energy. Plants and cyanobacteria trap only a fraction of the energy from the sun to produce sugars that form the basis of the food chain. Of course the entropy of the sun is slowly increasing and in several billion years the sun will become a red giant and destroy the Earth and all remaining life.


    Niles Eldridge, The Trumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. 2000, WH Freeman and Co. NY.
  5. Peez Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2002
    star 4
    Regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT)

    I simply do not have the time (nor the patience) to read through the more than 7,000 words that _Darth_Brooks_ posted on the 2LoT. What liitle I did read was ill-informed at best. I have no interest in engaging in a contest to see who can post the larger blocks of text, especially when others do not bother to respond meaningfully to what I do post. I invite any of you reading here to inform yourself on the 2LoT. Naturally, there are a number of sites explaining why the creationist claim that evolution violates the 2LoT is entirely wrong:


    But of course you may want to get an explanation of the 2LoT from a source that is not concerned with evolution, like:


    But of course you can find others. Another good source is an introductory physics text book, or even try contacting a physicist. Don't be shy, but don't be surprised if the physicist laughs at the creationist idea that evolution contradicts the 2LoT.

  6. jedi-jeff Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 3
    I simply do not have the time (nor the patience) to read through the more than 7,000 words that Darth_Brooks_ posted on the 2LoT. What liitle I did read was ill-informed at best.

    I also do not understand the point of such a verbose post that lacks a reference to even a single scientific paper or book written by scienitist who conducts research in the field in question.
  7. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4
    Then, Jeff, you didn't read it.

  8. _Darth_Brooks_ Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 4

    Pure propaganda. LOL!! :D

    You didn't bother to read it so you called it "illinformed"!! LOL!

    You gotta be kidding!

    I can't possibly take you seriously.

  9. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 9
    Okay, this is enough. If any of you wish to continue, there is PM and outside means of communication.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.