Creation vs. Evolution

[Stripe]

No, but Yorzhik has, and a claim that you have implicitly agreed with. To refute it, requires only a single counter-example which was already provided.

Evolutionists love implications.

Evolution defies the second law. Respond to the challenge without any of the question begging. :up:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Evolutionists love implications.

Evolution defies the second law. Respond to the challenge without any of the question begging. :up:

You asked for something, and it was provided. when your request was met, instead of admitting that local entropy can decrease you made additional requests. This is moving the goalpost.

 

[gcthomas]

Everything is subject to the second law.

That is a very silly thing to claim. It makes you look willfully stupid.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to discussions of the meaning of information or the evolutionary value of one allele over another? Pull the other one Stripe!

You funny man!

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Everything is subject to the second law.

Is it the second law of everything, or the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[Stripe]

You asked for something, and it was provided.

Be specific, now. I asked for the mechanism by which information is added to a genome.

when your request was met.

Let us not forget, the response was that evolution is the mechanism that justifies belief in evolution.

instead of admitting that local entropy can decrease you made additional requests.

Nope.

I made it abundantly clear that a local decrease in entropy requires a mechanism to enable the work to be done. There was no declaration that entropy cannot decrease locally.

Inventing my argument for me is no way to conduct a rational debate.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

There was no declaration that entropy cannot decrease locally.

Really? :think:

I'm saying that you can't say that entropy must always locally increase. We can, unless you can show a mechaism by which it is locally decreased.

...which he did.

 

[Stripe]

Is this specific enough?Really? :think:

...which he did.

This whole English thing -- it is a bit much for you, isn't it?

When I make a declaration: "It is," and follow it immediately by a qualifier: "unless," that means the answer to the preceding question: "Is it?" could be: "No."

Meanwhile, the evolutionists' mechanism to justify their adherence to evolution is still evolution.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

This whole English thing -- it is a bit much for you, isn't it?

When I make a declaration: "It is," and follow it immediately by a qualifier: "unless," that means the answer to the preceding question: "Is it?" could be: "No."

Meanwhile, the evolutionists' mechanism to justify their adherence to evolution is still evolution.

The use of the term "unless" suggests that you would concede his statement if the condition was met. So have you?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Thank you for proving yet once again that you cannot be trusted to engage in any discussion honestly.

 

[Stripe]

The use of the term "unless" suggests that you would concede his statement if the condition was met. So have you?

:chuckle:

Evolutionists.

Try reading the conversation instead of derailing it. The challenge to evolution is from the second law. There cannot be a decrease in entropy that evolution demands to allow single-cell organisms to turn into fish and people. It is possible for a local decrease in entropy to occur, but that requires work to be done and a mechanism through which that worked can be achieved.

Thus the question I posed is: "What mechanism allows information to be added to the genome?"

The evolutionists' answer is: "Evolution."

This is question-begging nonsense. It is as if I asked by what mechanism does a fridge generate a decrease in local entropy, and the evolutionist answered: "Fridges."

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Did you or did you not concede his statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Stripe]

Did you or did you not concede his statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Evolutionists hate reading.

 

[alwight]

Evolutionists hate reading.

I hate reading any of your nonsense Stripe. :hammer:

 

[noguru]

I hate reading any of your nonsense Stripe. :hammer:

Yep, but he keeps unloading it here. Because the powers that be on this site are stupid friendly.

 

[noguru]

:chuckle:

Evolutionists.

Try reading the conversation instead of derailing it. The challenge to evolution is from the second law. There cannot be a decrease in entropy that evolution demands to allow single-cell organisms to turn into fish and people. It is possible for a local decrease in entropy to occur, but that requires work to be done and a mechanism through which that worked can be achieved.

Thus the question I posed is: "What mechanism allows information to be added to the genome?"

The evolutionists' answer is: "Evolution."

This is question-begging nonsense. It is as if I asked by what mechanism does a fridge generate a decrease in local entropy, and the evolutionist answered: "Fridges."

No, we have consistently identified the specific mechanisms through which genetic variation and natural selection work. You continuously/conveniently ignore those subjects. If you are still in a quandary about how biological life gets raw energy from its surroundings, you can easily do some research on metabolism, chemosynthesis, photosynthesis...Or you can go back and look at all those posts you have chosen to overlook.

Keep having me repeat this. Because those who are willing to understand will. And those like you who prefer to wallow in confusion will, well, wallow in confusion.

 

[doloresistere]

Yep, but he keeps unloading it here. Because the powers that be on this site are stupid friendly.

There is a mistaken notion that if you accept evolution and an old earth, you remove the foundation for Christianity. It is a frightening thought and the brain kicks into denial mode with a vengeance. It will create wacky ideas like the hydroplate theory and maintain them even in the face of the impossible implications for it when presented.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Evolutionists hate reading.

Did you or did you not concede his statement? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Tyrathca]

The challenge to evolution is from the second law. There cannot be a decrease in entropy that evolution demands to allow single-cell organisms to turn into fish and people. It is possible for a local decrease in entropy to occur, but that requires work to be done and a mechanism through which that worked can be achieved.

Your first sentence contradicts your last, trying to have your cake and eat it to are we? Given the bold clearly there can be what you ask for, this therefore is a does or does not issue not one of whether it can or cannot.

A seemingly simple yet extremely important difference. It means you admit that it is theoretically possible, based on our knowledge of entropy, for evolution to have a mechanism/s that result in decreasing entropy. In fact we know this occurs, the work of the growth of a body represents a ever in entropy over an extended period of time. Here we have an example of life decreasing entropy that even you can't deny since it happened to you. (You've already been told by me and several others the mechanisms for evolution - which is essentially this plus reproduction)

Thus the question I posed is: "What mechanism allows information to be added to the genome?"

That is a separate question altogether and has little to do with the second law of thermodynamics. If you can find a reference to the SLoT and it's calculation of information then let me know.

Otherwise you need to provide a USABLE definition of information, preferably one that is already used by science and is measurable not the that unusable and unmeasurable invention of yours provided earlier.

 

[Yorzhik]

And the chemical message system in the cell isn't governed by thermodynamics?

I suppose you are going to say the cellular systems don't rely on chemical reactions now?

What effect are you supposing the distribution of heat has on mutation rate?

Yes, the distribution of heat from usable to unusable places is what the 2nd law is about. Seriously, before you say what you said, you should read Prof. Lambert's pages on the 2nd law instead of embarrassing yourself like you just did.

 

[noguru]

Yes, the distribution of heat from usable to unusable places is what the 2nd law is about. Seriously, before you say what you said, you should read Prof. Lambert's pages on the 2nd law instead of embarrassing yourself like you just did.

Can you summarize for us how the 2nd law stops evolution from working?

If not you are just blowing smoke and sending us down another of your useless rabbit trails.