Evolution Debate

[noguru]

No. I fully realize I'm a created being. I'm just happy to be here.

I feel exactly the same way.

If the universe is all the matter and energy that exists (and according to dictionary.com, it is), then there's nothing else with which it can interact -- that's a closed system anyway you slice it.

But Jack we don't know enough about how the universe works yet to make this assumption. Neither do we know if the universe is only the matter/energy and space of which we are currently aware. It's strange that most professionals who study this field would not make such a claim, but you are certain that your claim is completely and exhaustively exact.

Why do you reject it then?

I don't. But like you, when I come here I'm just killing time before I go to bed.

But you reject intelligent design, is that correct?

Nope. I just do not believe that such a hypothesis can be verified through the material sciences. That is if the intelligence is assumed to be "supernatural".

I didn't ask you whether or not God exists -- I simply asked what sort of thing you would consider as evidence of His handiwork.

I accept all sorts of things as his handiwork. He did after all create the matter/energy and natural processes in the universe.

No -- I'm not even asking that question. I already know God exists.

I didn't say you were asking that question. I said that you seem to need to find evidence from the material sciences to support your knowledge that God exists.

 

[aharvey]

[static]

Phew, you finally decided to abandon any pretense of "discussion." Now perhaps Yorzhik and I can resume our discussion.

If you would like to revisit the Wald quotations on this thread in addition to the other one you started, then I will be happy to oblige. But first let me post all the quotations so that the casual reader can decipher the nature of the dispute.

Nah, better to keep it there, so I've moved that part over. But thanks for adding to the list of poorly referenced and out-of-context Wald quotes.

 

[Yorzhik]

Um, those sound like exactly the same claim to me!

Oops, I meant "open".

Your definition has a couple of interesting components to it:

1. “differences”… in anything? Have we been able to expand the lawlike behavior of SloT to cover everything?

No, I would only be referring to differences related to energy transfer. Could you tell me why this would be interesting? why "energy transfer" wouldn't be obviously what I was referring to in the context of this discussion?

2. you dropped “thermodynamically isolated” from “systems;” is there a reason for that? I get the “thermodynamically” part, since the law now apparently covers everything, but do systems no longer need to be “isolated”?

Because you look at every energy transfer in its context whether it be in a "thermodynamically isolated" system or not. It's the way we always actually work with the law because that's the conditions we work under.

3. you do keep the “tend to” part in the definition. That little qualifier seems extremely relevant.

It could be irrelevant if we are talking about a practical application only. But we are mixing in a theoretical application too, so I leave it in.

With respect to evolution, what are you considering the relevant “systems” to be? Mutations occur within individuals or their gametes; are these the systems? Evolutionary change is something we observe at the population level; is this the system? Or is the earth itself the relevant system?

Any system where energy transfer will occur spontaneously. However, that is most easily discussed at the DNA level.

That goal was never quite achieved, though. By focusing on the end points (i.e., how we assign modern taxa to phyla), you lose sight of the point that the significance of two lineages diverging is that they subsequently have separate evolutionary histories, not that they end up looking profoundly different. Let’s take your fish-mammal example. It doesn’t matter whether their most recent common ancestor looked like a fish, a mammal, something in between, or something else altogether. But whatever that common ancestor looked like, it was one single lineage representing just a single species, maybe even a single population within a species, of critter. And a short time after that lineage irrevocably split into two lineages (that eventually led to two very different body plans), the two lineages would hardly have been distinguishable; initially, they wouldn’t even be considered different species, much less phyla. But once the two lineage stop sharing genes, they are free to respond to ecological pressures differently, their subsequent mutational histories are independent of each other, and the more time passes, the more different they are likely to become. The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.

See the first bolded text; Yes, that is the point I was driving at. It doesn't matter what it was, a fish, a mammal, or something else. Whatever mutations were required to eventually get to the point in question (and I am talking about that arbitrary phylum point) from the point at which the lineages split - that is the definition of "evo". Either we can use that definition, or a fish and a mammal are the same thing.

 

[Johnny]

Yorzhik, can you respond to the discussion in our 3rd generation thread? I realize you may be busy, but I saw that you engaged another SLoT debate here.

 

[Yorzhik]

I put a post up there a day or so ago. Was there another post I was supposed to respond to?

 

[bob b]

Originally Posted by aharvey

That goal was never quite achieved, though. By focusing on the end points (i.e., how we assign modern taxa to phyla), you lose sight of the point that the significance of two lineages diverging is that they subsequently have separate evolutionary histories, not that they end up looking profoundly different. Let’s take your fish-mammal example. It doesn’t matter whether their most recent common ancestor looked like a fish, a mammal, something in between, or something else altogether. But whatever that common ancestor looked like, it was one single lineage representing just a single species, maybe even a single population within a species, of critter. And a short time after that lineage irrevocably split into two lineages (that eventually led to two very different body plans), the two lineages would hardly have been distinguishable; initially, they wouldn’t even be considered different species, much less phyla. But once the two lineage stop sharing genes, they are free to respond to ecological pressures differently, their subsequent mutational histories are independent of each other, and the more time passes, the more different they are likely to become. The same processes that give us different species also give us different phyla. Only the time frame is different.

This appears to me to be what I encounter in the car showroom, namely when the saleman tells me all sorts of things that I probably agree with, but then when he has got me nodding my head at everything he says he tosses in a "hooker" (like the highlighted last sentence above).

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

Fossils can not be "dated" unless they contain unmineralized organic material. Whenever unmineralized organic material (like wood) is found in a sedimentary layer thought to be millions of years old and dated by C-14 it invariably dates to around 33,000 years ago.

1) How many actual examples of “unmineralized organic material (like wood)” can you supply that were found in “a sedimentary layer thought to be millions of years old”?

2) What is the approximate limit of time that C-14 dating can reach back?

This is well within the accuracy of the Genesis account considering the probable changes in cosmic radiation and other environmental factors not normally considered when the testing lab produces a "date".

The Genesis timeline that most YECs adhere to puts the age of the earth at 6000 to 7000 years. Some biological artifacts can be dated by reference by non-radiometric means (such as historical records, tree rings, etc.) a long ways towards 6000 years ago. Some of these same artifacts can be C-14 dated as well, and in fact that is how the C-14 dating is calibrated to adjust for the inherent uncertainties (ozone layer, etc).

Using the C-14 dating that is calibrated for accuracy back as far as reliable accepted non-radiometric methods reach, why would these same methods suddenly “invariably date to around 33,000 years ago”? This is a step discontinuity of 500%. Are there other biological specimens that use the calibrated C-14 and get dates intermediate between the 7000 year Genesis limit and the 33,000 years alluded to? If so, what combination of original C-14 and decay rates and so on would explain such intermediate dates?

Fossils are found entombed in sedimentary layers. "Sedimentary" means water-laid so that these layers are basically dried mud. This is why the layers cannot be dated either.

Many such layers are sandwiched between magma layers that are not sedimentary, and these encompassing layers are very dateable.

No creationist I know denies some small role of Natural Selection in aiding the small changes that lead to adaptation (bacterial/insecticide resistance). The dispute is whether small changes add up to huge changes (bacteria to humans) given enough time. We claim on scientific grounds that they don't.

“Based on scientific grounds” means you can substantiate that there is a limit to how far evolution can alter a species. Your proof is?

The fossil record is further proof that they don't.

And in this declaration you have completely discounted the primary evidence that more than a century of scientists have found does point to common descent. The fossil record is exactly one showing a history of increasing diversification of life

As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this.

There are several important results of SLoT in closed systems – results that can be trivially violated when the system is open. I am surprised you did not know this.

 

[noguru]

This appears to me to be what I encounter in the car showroom, namely when the saleman tells me all sorts of things that I probably agree with, but then when he has got me nodding my head at everything he says he tosses in a "hooker" (like the highlighted last sentence above).

Why would you trust a car salesman anyway? Do the research on your desired make, model, year. And go find yourself one.

 

[bob b]

Why would you trust a car salesman anyway? Do the research on your desired make, model, year. And go find yourself one.

Isn't that what I am in effect doing on this forum?

 

[noguru]

Isn't that what I am in effect doing on this forum?

Nope. It seems to me that you have been going from salesman to salesman in your life. And then complaining that you have been steered wrong.

 

[ThePhy]

I am surprised

I am surprised

From bob b:

As long as one accounts for any physical phenomena crossing the boundary defining a system, the SLoT is indifferent concerning the question of whether the system is ultimately "open" or "closed".

I am surprised that you did not know this.

Bob, I am surprised to see you say this. Most people, including many in the science community do not know this. Many are vaguely aware of the normal "closed system "SLoT". But you are right, even though a closed system is the norm for most discussions of the SLoT, in fact there are generalizations of it that, as you infer, apply to open systems.

The SLoT has two common interpretations – one is that disorder increases, and one is that energy becomes unavailable to do work

You offered your comment in a discussion of the SLoT and evolution. As it is commonly invoked against evolution, specifically what can SLoT in an open system say, or what aspect of evolution (or even abiogenesis) does an “open system SLoT” discredit? Is it more powerful in it's limitations than the normal "closed system SLoT"?

 

[bob b]

Bob, I am surprised to see you say this. Most people, including many in the science community do not know this. Many are vaguely aware of the normal "closed system "SLoT". But you are right, even though a closed system is the norm for most discussions of the SLoT, in fact there are generalizations of it that, as you infer, apply to open systems.

The SLoT has two common interpretations – one is that disorder increases, and one is that energy becomes unavailable to do work

You offered your comment in a discussion of the SLoT and evolution. As it is commonly invoked against evolution, specifically what can SLoT in an open system say, or what aspect of evolution (or even abiogenesis) does an “open system SLoT” discredit? Is it more powerful in it's limitations than the normal "closed system SLoT"?

To tell you the truth, I was not offering the SLoT as a means to falsify evolution (there are already plenty of other reasons to disbelieve it). I just happened to notice that the "open" thing was being thrown around and since I had already posted a reference to an article by a professor who had explained why the SLoT can also apply to open systems as well, I merely reminded people of this.

Actually my posting on METHINKS IT IS (LIKE) A WEASEL nicely disposes of "random mutations plus natural selection plus millions of years" in a simple and easy to see manner.

 

[ThePhy]

Stoking Bob

Stoking Bob

From bob b:

To tell you the truth, I was not offering the SLoT as a means to falsify evolution (there are already plenty of other reasons to disbelieve it). I just happened to notice that the "open" thing was being thrown around and since I had already posted a reference to an article by a professor who had explained why the SLoT can also apply to open systems as well, I merely reminded people of this.

Most ideas in math and science have variants that could be talked about, just as in the open systems version of the SLoT. But if introducing that variant does not help to establish a relevant point, it serves as obfuscation, not clarification. So you are admitting that you don’t know whether the open systems version of the SLoT clarifies whether or not evolution could occur? (Or, to be forthright, are you just trying to sound scientifically impressive?)

Generalizing the SLoT to an open system intimately depends on the application a powerful theorem in Calculus that deals with flows into or out of a volume. I presume you took calculus. Do you know the theorem I am referring to?

 

[fool]

Actually my posting on METHINKS IT IS (LIKE) A WEASEL nicely disposes of "random mutations plus natural selection plus millions of years" in a simple and easy to see manner.

I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post there and tell us what scrabble has to do with anything.
Just a guess, to get the ball rolling, if your talking about evolution, where on your scale of "p" in that thread does your theory that all dogs, wolves, cyotes, foxs, dingos, jackels, hyenas, ect. came from Noahs pooch fit?

 

[bob b]

I'm still waiting for you to reply to my post there and tell us what scrabble has to do with anything.
Just a guess, to get the ball rolling, if your talking about evolution, where on your scale of "p" in that thread does your theory that all dogs, wolves, cyotes, foxs, dingos, jackels, hyenas, ect. came from Noahs pooch fit?

Still in your "rut"?

I guess you, like Jukia, don't get the point either.

:darwinsm:

 

[fool]

Still in your "rut"?

I guess you, like Jukia, don't get the point either.

:darwinsm:

I guess you don't have a point if you can't clarify your OP there and answer my question here. Why do you bother Bob?

 

[bob b]

I guess you don't have a point if you can't clarify your OP there and answer my question here. Why do you bother Bob?

Sometimes I ask myself that.

But I am fond of you guys, some more than others, but I am truly amazed that your dogmatism has so blinded you that even grade schoolers could probably see what I was driving at (at least in some small way).

You're a pretty intelligent guy. Try taking a wild guess. :think:

 

[Lord Vader]

This appears to me to be what I encounter in the car showroom, namely when the saleman tells me all sorts of things that I probably agree with, but then when he has got me nodding my head at everything he says he tosses in a "hooker" (like the highlighted last sentence above).

Hello. I'm not a biologist, so I wanted to ask what was wrong with the highlighted part? Many thanks.

 

[Jackson]

The problem with evolution scientists is that they are searching for an answer and they say that positively under no circumstances can the answers ever be any thing the Bible says! It is like trying to figure out what 2+2 is and saying the answer can never be 4...

 

[Lord Vader]

The problem with evolution scientists is that they are searching for an answer and they say that positively under no circumstances can the answers ever be any thing the Bible says! It is like trying to figure out what 2+2 is and saying the answer can never be 4...

I'm not replying directly to you, Jackson. I just wanted to ask if Bob B agrees with this and finds no problem with the logic.