Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Jose Fly]

I am making sense, you are the one spreading nonsense.
The energy used in a closed system to convert hydrogen and oxygen into water becomes unavailable to do anything else, increasing the total entropy of the system.


When you add the increase in entropy from the energy used with the so-called decrease in entropy from the conversion, you still end up with an net increase in entropy, not a decrease.

Look, your original point in this was to argue that evolution can't take place because it involves decreases in entropy. That's obviously not true, as 1) we see populations evolving all the time (including increases in complexity), and 2) we've established that localized decreases in entropy occur regularly where there is available energy.

So I'm not really sure what your point is here.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

Evolution is assumed. I used "robust" in a specific, measurable way. You don't get to use it in another way and claim to have shown my assertion wrong.

Nope. You can read my ideas.

Nope. Assertions are fine. Your problem is that you use your assertions as if they are evidence.


Not even close.

Were you only interested in your agenda?

Thanks for your time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Look, your original point in this was to argue that evolution can't take place because it involves decreases in entropy.

I asked "Is life defying entropy by creating more and more complexity in every generation due to random mutations?"
You seem to be under the mistaken opinion that it does.

That's obviously not true, as 1) we see populations evolving all the time (including increases in complexity),

We do not see populations evolving anywhere.
We see adaptation within the parameters set by the information encoded in the DNA.
We see mutations.
We do not see evolution taking place.
That should not be a surprise to you since you believe it takes much longer than several generations for evolution to happen.

and 2) we've established that localized decreases in entropy occur regularly where there is available energy.

We have established that you think entropy can be reversed by adding energy to a closed system.
We have not established that a chemical reaction is a decrease in entropy.

So I'm not really sure what your point is here.

It is okay to admit that you are ignorant, since ignorance can be cured through proper education.
Unfortunately, ignorance can be increased through miseducation.

 

[Jose Fly]

I asked "Is life defying entropy by creating more and more complexity in every generation due to random mutations?"
You seem to be under the mistaken opinion that it does.

And as was pointed out before, your question is a straw man (no one is saying complexity increases with every generation). Further, the answer to the first part (is life defying entropy) is "no".

We do not see populations evolving anywhere.

Yes we do. Multiple people have posted direct observations of populations evolving. Just today I posted a description of the observed, closely studied, and documented evolution of multiple species of plants.

You simply saying "Nuh uh" is hardly a meaningful response.

We see adaptation within the parameters set by the information encoded in the DNA.
We see mutations.
We do not see evolution taking place.

What's the difference between a population "adapting" and a population evolving?

We have established that you think entropy can be reversed by adding energy to a closed system.

And you don't? If not, why then did you say "Try converting chaos into order in any system without adding any energy to the system"?

We have not established that a chemical reaction is a decrease in entropy.

Then explain why going from separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms to a water molecule is not a decrease in entropy.

 

[Stripe]

Thanks for your time.

Typical Darwinist. Even hint at a discussion over the evidence and they run for the hills.

Bye bye, loser. :loser:

 

[genuineoriginal]

And as was pointed out before, your question is a straw man (no one is saying complexity increases with every generation).

I see, your objection is the use of the word "every", but you would probably not have a problem with the statement that "complexity increases over multiple generations".
:chuckle:

Further, the answer to the first part (is life defying entropy) is "no".

We seem to agree that life does not defy entropy, however your arguments are based on chemical reactions defying entropy.

Multiple people have posted direct observations of populations evolving. Just today I posted a description of the observed, closely studied, and documented evolution of multiple species of plants.

Are they still plants?
Are they still the same kind of plants as their ancestors?
If so, then they have not evolved and your classification of "species" is specious.

What's the difference between a population "adapting" and a population evolving?

Adaptation takes place within the parameters defined by the information encoded in the DNA.
Evolution would require a change in the DNA to add information that is not already there.

We have established that you think entropy can be reversed by adding energy to a closed system.

And you don't? If not, why then did you say "Try converting chaos into order in any system without adding any energy to the system"?

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation"​

Genesis 1:1-3 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.​

In other words, God converted chaos into order by adding divine energy to a closed system.

Then explain why going from separate hydrogen and oxygen atoms to a water molecule is not a decrease in entropy.

Every process that uses energy results in an increase of entropy.

 

[Jose Fly]

I see, your objection is the use of the word "every", but you would probably not have a problem with the statement that "complexity increases over multiple generations".

As has been noted here several times, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

We seem to agree that life does not defy entropy,

Then what exactly is your point/argument? You asked whether life defies entropy and here you answer your own question.

Are they still plants?

So any change within the same taxonomic kingdom isn't evolution? I guess then human/primate common ancestry is no problem for you since they're both in the kingdom Animalia.

Adaptation takes place within the parameters defined by the information encoded in the DNA.
Evolution would require a change in the DNA to add information that is not already there.

So in the example I posted there are stark genetic differences between the parental species and the newly evolved ones, and the newly evolved species are more robust as well. It's all described in the paper.

So based on your own criteria, they did indeed evolve.

And btw, where did you get those rather unique definitions? Did you just make them up?

In other words, God converted chaos into order by adding divine energy to a closed system.

I'm sure those are your religious beliefs.

Every process that uses energy results in an increase of entropy.

As we both agree, life does not "defy entropy".

 

[genuineoriginal]

So in the example I posted there are stark genetic differences between the parental species and the newly evolved ones, and the newly evolved species are more robust as well. It's all described in the paper.

So based on your own criteria, they did indeed evolve.

There was no evolution in the example you posted that I looked at.

"There is evidence of lineage-specific genome-level changes, including gene loss"​

Gene loss is the expected outcome from a Creationist perspective.

 

[Jose Fly]

There was no evolution in the example you posted that I looked at.

"There is evidence of lineage-specific genome-level changes, including gene loss"​

Gene loss is the expected outcome from a Creationist perspective.

Wow. So to you, "including gene loss" means "nothing but gene loss"?

Further, you either deliberately quoted that out of context, or you didn't understand the material (the more likely scenario). The researchers were trying to understand why the two newly evolved species were unable to breed with each other. One of their hypotheses is that after the two new species had already evolved, one of them underwent subsequent gene loss that the other new species didn't go through, and as a result they are genetically unable to interbreed. Now read this again with that understanding....

Alternatively, the lack of recombinants between different polyploid genotypes could be due to postzygotic incompatibilities among genetically distinct independent origins, a possibility we are just beginning to explore. There is evidence of lineage-specific genome-level changes, including gene loss (Tate et al. 2006, 2009; Buggs et al. 2009; Koh et al. 2010) and variation for chromosomal changes (Lim et al. 2008) in T. mirus and T. miscellus; both could promote reproductive isolation.​

Understand? The "gene loss" you selectively focused on hypothetically occurred in one of the two species after it had already evolved, and didn't occur in the other one (otherwise they'd be able to interbreed).

Also, I am curious....where did you get those unique definitions for evolution and adaptation? Did you make them up?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The researchers were trying to understand why the two newly evolved species were unable to breed with each other.

The researchers were trying to understand why hybrid species had less reproductive ability than the source species?
Like trying to understand why a mule is not able to reproduce like horses and donkeys are?

One of their hypotheses is that after the two new species had already evolved, one of them underwent subsequent gene loss that the other new species didn't go through, and as a result they are genetically unable to interbreed. Now read this again with that understanding....

The "gene loss" you selectively focused on hypothetically occurred in one of the two species after it had already evolved

Hybridization is not evolution, but I can understand why you would want it to be.

Also, I am curious....where did you get those unique definitions for evolution and adaptation? Did you make them up?

Adaptation takes place within the parameters defined by the information encoded in the DNA.
Evolution would require a change in the DNA to add information that is not already there.

What makes you think these are unique definitions?
These statements are a summary of what Creationists have been saying for many years, like in this quote:

Changes of behaviour, as a species learns to adapt to a new habitat, also is not Darwinian evolution. If such adaptation means an animal can no longer breed with its previous fellows, i.e. if speciation occurs, this too is not Darwinian evolution, because this involves a sorting of existing information, not the acquisition of new genetic information.
Galápagos with David Attenborough: Evolution​

 

[Jose Fly]

The researchers were trying to understand why hybrid species had less reproductive ability than the source species?
Like trying to understand why a mule is not able to reproduce like horses and donkeys are?

No. The two newly evolved species are fully capable of breeding among themselves, but they can't breed with each other. The researchers are trying to figure out why.

Hybridization is not evolution

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go into online forums and make empty assertions.

These statements are a summary of what Creationists have been saying for many years

Ah, so they are definitions unique to creationists, rather than being actual scientific definitions.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No. The two newly evolved species are fully capable of breeding among themselves, but they can't breed with each other. The researchers are trying to figure out why.

There are mechanisms that God put in the DNA to prevent the spread of mutations and hybrids.
Because of the existence of these mechanisms, evolution as you understand it is not able to happen.
As mutations happen, a "species" gets farther genetically from the base "kind" of organism.
Because of this the strain is less able to keep reproducing and adapting to its environment.
These strains are headed for extinction, not evolution.

Ah, so they are definitions unique to creationists, rather than being actual scientific definitions.

You make it sound like actual scientific definitions are bad.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are mechanisms that God put in the DNA to prevent the spread of mutations and hybrids.
Because of the existence of these mechanisms, evolution as you understand it is not able to happen.
As mutations happen, a "species" gets farther genetically from the base "kind" of organism.
Because of this the strain is less able to keep reproducing and adapting to its environment.
These strains are headed for extinction, not evolution.

Thanks for sharing your religious beliefs.

You make it sound like actual scientific definitions are bad.

Quite the opposite. When discussing science, it's appropriate to use terms as they are defined in science.

 

[genuineoriginal]

When discussing science, it's appropriate to use terms as they are defined in science.

The exception is when those definitions are deliberately misleading, like the ones used for evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

The exception is when those definitions are deliberately misleading, like the ones used for evolution.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thanks for your opinion.

:e4e:

 

[The Barbarian]

There are mechanisms that God put in the DNA to prevent the spread of mutations and hybrids.

If your imaginary idea was correct, it would mean that God is incompetent. We see new mutations spreading through populations frequently. And when environments change, we start to see hypridization increase, because in many cases, separated populations come together and hybridize.

Rare ‘Pizzly’ Or ‘Grolar’ Bear Shot And Killed By Hunter In Canada
“It is not a good thing for the future of polar bears that we see this hybridization occurring.”

It’s called a “pizzly” or “grolar” bear, and is so rare only a handful of sightings have been confirmed in the wild — and no one can say for sure how many even exist.

Until about 10 years ago, few believed this hybrid grizzly-polar bear even existed in the wild at all.

But earlier this month, one of these rare bears was shot and killed in Canada by 25-year-old hunter Didji Ishalook.

“It looks like a polar bear but it’s got brown paws and big claws like a grizzly,” Ishalook told the Guardian. “And the shape of a grizzly head.”

DNA samples from the bear have been sent out for testing, but experts think they already know what the results will say.

“I think it’s 99 per cent sure that it’s going to turn out to be a hybrid,” Ian Stirling, an emeritus research scientist with Environment Canada, told The Toronto Star.

The paper reports that the bear was legally killed as part of a program that allows Inuit to practice subsistence hunting.

Stirling explained that it can take several days to induce ovulation in a female bear.

“The fact that a grizzly and polar bear are mating tells you that they’re hanging out,” he told the Star. “This isn’t just a casual one-night stand kind of thing.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pizzly-grolar-bear-shot-killed_us_57453eeae4b055bb1170b094

Pizzly or grolar bear: grizzly-polar hybrid is a new result of climate change
Grizzly bears in Alaska and Canada are moving north as their environment warms, bringing them into contact with polar bears located on the coastline
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...olar-bear-grizzly-polar-hybrid-climate-change

Because of the existence of these mechanisms, evolution as you understand it is not able to happen.

Show us one of those "mechanisms", with the data.

As mutations happen, a "species" gets farther genetically from the base "kind" of organism.

For example, the apple maggot fly didn't exist a few hundred years ago. There were hawthorne maggot flies, but no apple maggot flies. Then Europeans brought apple trees to America. Good for the flies, except that the maggot flies timing for reproduction was out of sync with apples.

Then a few mutant forms showed up, which could use apples for their larvae, and critically, liked the smell of apples instead of Hawthornes. They've spread rapidly, and because they don't have the same reproductive timing as Hawthorn flies, they don't interbreed. Now we have two populations, both doing quite well.

The rise of the apple maggot fly – how an altered sense of smell could drive the formation of new species
Roughly 180 years ago, some hawthorn fruit flies in the Eastern coast of North America smelt the fruits on apple trees – a fairly recent import into that region from Europe – and found them attractive. Today, nearly 2 centuries later, the flies have evolved into two distinct ‘tribes’. One tribe, called hawthorn flies, prefer to use native North American hawthorn fruit to lay their eggs on, while the other, called apple flies attack crops of domesticated apples. Apple flies are currently one of the greatest pest threats to apple production in Northeast America and Canada.

But how did the split amongst these fruit flies come about?

A clue to how this divergence emerged has now been worked out by scientists from the University of Notre Dame, USA, and the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), Bangalore. Their study indicates that a minuscule change in the connections of two channels in the brain – one for detecting hawthorn odours and the other for apple odours – could have been a major cause for the switch in host fruit.

Hawthorn flies and apple flies are considered to be two races of the species complex Rhagoletis pomonella. The flies are textbook examples for the process of sympatric speciation, a process by which new species evolve in the same geographic region from a common ancestor species. The two races of flies maintain separate populations on the basis of preferred host fruits, which they detect through smells – apple flies prefer apple scents, while hawthorn flies prefer hawthorn fruit smells.
http://news.ncbs.res.in/research/ri...sense-smell-could-drive-formation-new-species

Because of this the strain is less able to keep reproducing and adapting to its environment.
These strains are headed for extinction, not evolution.

See above. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You make it sound like actual scientific definitions are bad.

Remember, you don't have a clue about what the scientific definitions are.

 

[genuineoriginal]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pizzly-grolar-bear-shot-killed_us_57453eeae4b055bb1170b094

From your article: “And it’s not going to result in some kind of new bear that is successfully living in the Arctic.”

 

[The Barbarian]

From your article: “And it’s not going to result in some kind of new bear that is successfully living in the Arctic.”

Rather, it's for exactly what you claimed is impossible; hybridization producing a new population that persists. I just posted another example for you.

It's clear that the new type of bear will live not in the arctic, but in the areas starting to warm up. The pizzly bear will likely be most successful on the border between the ranges of polar bears and grizzly bears.

 

[6days]

Either a) the 'author' does not know what real science is... or b) is equivocating on terminogy. (Real science is not your beliefs about the past, nor mine)

If you were right, we'd have to toss out geology, astronomy, archeology, forensics...(long list). But you're wrong. The notion that evidence can't tell us what happened in the past, is so patently foolish that no one actually believes it. Not even you.

In your case Barbarian, both option A and B apply. Special Creation and common ancestry are beliefs about the past... not science. (Although, science does help confirm the truth of God's Word.)

Parables are not science. They are ways of teaching us by telling stories.

The belief a frog can become a handsome prince is a fairy tale... not a parable.

(No matter how much scientists tell creationists that humans evolved from primates, they never quite get it)

Fortunately not all scientists have compromised on Scripture. Luke 17 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. Peoplewere eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.