A big problem for Evolution?

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by BluE_MeaniE

I love evolution, but coming back to these threads is masochism. I'm sorry.

Ugh! He hit it right on the spot. I saw this thread, thought, "Hmm, I completely forgot about that." I came back, read what was going on, felt like throwing up. I love creation, but coming back to these threads is masochism. If anybody, creationist, evolutionist, or those unsure want to talk to me about it, I have no problem talking to you, and will probably enjoy talking to you. However, posting in a thread like this and getting gang-raped by those that say I'm wrong is not fun.

[talisman]

Remember that time where you said that no information could be added to DNA and you were completely incorrect?

[EternalWrath]

Now, I'm not in college yet, so I don't have much experience in the field of evolution besides high school biology. Also, I am much more interested in physics over biology, so I probably wouldn't be able to add to this discussion much anyway, but here goes...

In school we discussed the possibility (nothing is certain in science, not even gravity or time) of discovering the origin of the universe through physics. Something to do with how black holes contributed to the gravitational field of the universe and how it wouldn't exist without it, and how that fits into the big bang theory. We didn't go into much detail about it, but I believe that if we can discover how the universe was formed via physics, it might provide evidence one way or another for traditional evolution or intelligent design. I don't believe creationism is true, but I'm more agnostic than atheist.

I agree with Jewpin that evolution is not proven. We don't know. I bet most of you would agree that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of relativity. Wrong. Recently, and I mean VERY recently, scientists were able to accelerate an electron to a speed faster than that of the speed of light. Do I believe this? I'm not sure, but it opens up a lot of doors and introduces many questions. I also question many of you as to the scientific definition of gravity. I'm sure with the intelligence I have perceived here that many of you know it, but since the debate centers around biology and not physics, but is entering the realm of science versus religion in general, I think it is fair game to ask.

So I don't have much else to add to the discussion, aside from how the big bang theory relates to the theory of evolution, and how both theories are being remodeled constantly to fit the needs of both of them. And with that I'm off to find a thread that interests me more, possibly in the area of string theory or brane theory.

[Reach]

I agree with Jewpin that evolution is not proven. We don't know. I bet most of you would agree that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, according to Einstein's theory of relativity. Wrong.

This isn't new at all. As far as I know Einstein and others found faster than light solutions to relativity a long time ago, and they have been explained.

More recently, they have shown you can use things like quantum entanglement to move massless particles faster than light, or they have shown you can use cesium gas to make light get from the end of one tube to another faster than light would normally...however, there is some confusion here. The phase velocity at no point ever exceeds the speed of light. Actually, they still move at the same ol velocity predicted by relativity; light speed.


So essentially the photon/particle/electron never moves from one point to another faster than it does normally. They're manipulating other variables here to make it look like its going faster than light from our perspective. More specifically, this involves manipulating the path upon which the particles are moving.

Oh yea, relativity says nothing about massless particles being able to go faster than light, either. The light speed limit only applies to mass. Also, it is entirely possible to move from point A to point B instantaneously as far as I know, but in this case I don't think the particles, relative to themselves, are moving any faster than they would normally.

[EternalWrath]

Touche. Perhaps I misunderstood the source, or the source itself was misleading, but it led me to believe that the electron really could go faster than the speed of light, which would alter our very knowledge of time as we know it. But, that is a topic for another thread. Resume the discussion of evolution.

[WalkWhat?Out]

According to the Law Of Entropy, things can only change from complex to simple, not from simple to more complex. How, then, could humans, which are apparently very complex beings, originate from a simple primordial soup of chemicals? (Yes, if you take the theory back to the beginning, that is where evolution claims we came from.)

One thing is for sure, I didn't come from any animal!

Please don't reply to this if you don't know what you're talking about, as most of you don't.

[talisman]

second law of thermodynamics only applies given a closed system with no source of energy. Clearly, life forms require and use massive amounts of energy to sustain their order and fight entropy.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by WalkWhat?Out

According to the Law Of Entropy, things can only change from complex to simple, not from simple to more complex. How, then, could humans, which are apparently very complex beings, originate from a simple primordial soup of chemicals? (Yes, if you take the theory back to the beginning, that is where evolution claims we came from.)

One thing is for sure, I didn't come from any animal!

Please don't reply to this if you don't know what you're talking about, as most of you don't.

Oh, don't you EVEN try to bring the Second Law of Thermodynamics into this. The Second Law ONLY supports evolution in myriad ways.

I shouldn't even be wasting my time on this, but anyway...

That "things only go from complex to simple" ONLY applies to a closed system where there is NO energy gradient. NO part of that can be applied to Earth, which has COUNTLESS thermal/chemical/mechanical energy gradients all over it.

SECONDLY, nature FREQUENTLY goes from simple to complex in the presence of energy gradients. In Rayleigh-Benard cells, a thin film of liquid that's heated at the bottom and exposed to the ambient at the top will, as the thermal gradient is increased, go from disorganized, Brownian motion water that destroys the gradient by conduction, to complex, structured, hexagonal cells that have warm water rising in the middle and cooling on the outside when the gradient hits the Rayleigh number.

You don't know the FIRST THING about the Second Law if you're spewing that filth around here.

YOU shouldn't be posting about this since YOU don't know a lick about it. I study nonequilibrium thermodynamics in my spare time. Do you? My guess is that you don't, because anyone who knows the first thing about thermodynamics would never make that atrocious claim.

UGH, I really hate it when people entertain the idea that the Second Law speaks against evolution, when it's just the opposite.

There are plenty of other gaping holes in his post, but they're so completely wrong that they don't need to be addressed.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by das1ngerplayer

My evidence is the Bible

As I stated earlier, the Bible CANNOT be used as a source of scientific information. Period. No question about it.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories are based upon mountains of scientific evidence. The Bible, being based on a scientific construct, is the exact opposite of scientific evidence. Just because it contains some passages that may agree with what science says doesn't make it a valid source of scientific evidence.

I'm not telling you that you have to believe evolution. You can believe whatever you want. What you CANNOT do, though, is say that evolution is scientifically unsound. Matters of faith and matters of science are mutually exclusive, as much as you may want to tie them together. I've already stated why.

As such, in a scientific context, evolution has been proven (as much as science can prove, I know, I know) many times over.

If you choose to not believe that and to instead accept the Genesis stories as literal fact, I can neither stop you nor desire to stop you. That is your choice and it's a perfectly legitimate one.

Again, though, you cannot legitimately disparage evolution, because that is what the evidence suggests happened. This you cannot deny, due to the plethora of evidence indicating so.

there isn't much I can do to make you read it and actually try to understand what I think.

Who says I don't read the Bible? I'm a practicing Catholic.

Also, I understand very well what you think; I'm just saying that you're not understanding what I'm thinking. I'm not trying to say "my theory is better than yours". I'm saying "evolution is what the evidence supports."

But in my shoes, I don't think science has many 'facts' to prove evolution.

And this is simply either ignorance of all the evidence that's out there or intellectual dishonesty in denying that evidence (I presume the former).

At many points the Bible and science do cross reference.

Doesn't mean a damn thing. So long as the Bible still claims that fantastic things occurred, it is scientifically useless.

Let me repeat: in a religious context, evolution isn't worth a cent. In a scientific context, the Bible doesn't mean a thing. I repeat myself a lot, but I'm just trying to get you to understand this very important fact.

Unless you are completely anti-God then you know how the two are both related.

I just said that they were mutually exclusive. Why do you think otherwise?

Science is about hypotheses, tests, and physical evidence.

Religion is about that which cannot be tested.

They can't tie into each other.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[NuclearShadow]

What the hell is the point of this thread rofl

People can't prove God exists nor prove he doesn't exists. I'm sure everyone agrees that microevolution is apparent and testable. I believe someone tested uhh what was it peas or beans or something like that. But the question is whether or not macroevolution is possible. As Guido said it's not apparent because of the great length of time, and well someone else said that a theory should not be assumed false until proven false, thus it's kinda hard to prove macroevolution wrong because of the vast amount of time it takes and our extremely short lifespans.

Just wondering, do we really even have a hope of making anywhere near a solid case for macroevolution? I mean with the limited amount of time is it worth it? It kinda seems like the best thing we could do is help out future scientists by taking pictures of current species and keepign them in a capsule to be passed down by many many many many many manyx50 generations. The they'd know for sure. Which wouldn't help us since well we'd be long gone and well if this all came to be without God, or a god,then we would just cease to exist. But I mean I guess we sacrifice our uncertainty for the certainty of future generations.

Bah I'm rambling.

Anyways what I'm saying is, God can't be proved nor disproved and because of time macroevolution cant be proved or disproved (just yet maybe). So what's the point of this thread? Only seems like to me it's for correcting those who only believe the first thing they hear.

[GuidoHunter]

Whoawhoawhoa. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't even believe in a distinction between micro- and macroevolution, let alone that macroevolution hasn't been proven.

The evidence is there.

Also, this thread isn't about proving or disproving God's existence.

--Guido

[NuclearShadow]

If I did I'm sorry I figured for the most part you thought the same as reach microevolution leading to macro.

Is there more evidence than some pickadilly moths on trees? Cause I really haven't heard much on the case for macroevolution even from my Human Species class. By the way where exactly is the line between micro and macro.

And I know that this thread isn't about God existence, I was trying to imply that we aren't so certain of it all and I don't see why people are trying to argue against evolution with the Bible (and vice versa if its been said havent read the whole thread).

[Reach]

Macroevolution can be proven o_O Don't compare evolution with God XD

You wouldn't have to directly observe an organism macroevolve to provide mounds of evidence for its existance. Not to mention, contrary to popular belief, there is no set time period it is supposed to take for 'macroevolution' to happen. It could happen rather quickly. It is dependant on the pressures being applies to an organism to undergo this evolution. The thing is though, 'Macroevolution' is pretty arbitrary, thus you can make it take as long or as little time as you want it to really...its just an arbitrary super classificatioin we made do describe massive scale evolution (probably half the reason it stirs up so much controversy).

I really like the way Guido worded that...so I'm going to quote it because it is true.

I don't even believe in a distinction between micro- and macroevolution, let alone that macroevolution hasn't been proven.

8)

Micro leading to Macro in the way that I described it would support this. There is essentially no difference. The difference is created by us as humans through classification, but is irrelevant when talking about things actually evolving over time. There is just too much, right up in your face evidence for things evolving.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by WalkWhat?Out

According to the Law Of Entropy, things can only change from complex to simple, not from simple to more complex.

The second law of thermodynamics has been used to attack evolution, however the argument (as used by leading creationists) have often been misconstrued by anticreationists and sometimes other creationists. I advise you to read up on it, since you seem to have misunderstood it yourself. (You can find some info on it on the link below.)

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tistham...ce/2ndlaw.html

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by Reach

Macroevolution can be proven o_O Don't compare evolution with God XD

Theories in general cannot be proven in science, and orthodox evolution is no exception. Still, it is possible in principle for evolution to be supported with evidence (the same also goes for the existence of God, however).

Micro leading to Macro in the way that I described it would support this. There is essentially no difference.

There is one: the type of changes (e.g. evolving a new organ) leading to a fundamentally new basic type. We simply do not see that with microevolution. Also, extrapolating the observed "micro" changes we see does not automatically lead to large-scale evolution. See post #43 and/or post #55 where I explain this.

[talisman]

We simply DO see evidence for macroevolution.

refute the evidence in this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Tisthammerw

Theories in general cannot be proven in science, and orthodox evolution is no exception.

Come on, can't we all agree to understand the degrees of proving something in a scientific context? Sure, things can't be 100% proven, but they can get as close as science can take them. This is what we mean by "proven".

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reach]

Originally Posted by talisman

We simply DO see evidence for macroevolution.

refute the evidence in this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Noones ever going to read it 8) That actually requires effort, you see.

I've posted that site so many times and noone ever reads it. Anything that actually provides evidence and counteracts unsupported beliefs will never be read XD

Still, it is possible in principle for evolution to be supported with evidence (the same also goes for the existence of God, however).

No, you can't provide any evidence for the existance of something that is supernatural; i.e. cannot be studied naturally within our system.

Unless of course God revealed himself in a way we could study him. Until then...



I'm aware evolution is, in itself an 'uncomplete theory'. That doesn't mean just because you can find specific examples of things evolution cannot explain, or that we have not observed yet that evolution is not true. There is simply too much evidence to suggest it is. What can I say...I like Occams razor very much. In this case the simpliest answer simply is that evolution is true. There is an undeniably large amount of evidence to suggest it is, regardless of holes (that people are filling up as we speak).

Most arguments against evolution are interesting in that they search for arguments primarily based on either 1. Old information or 2. There actually is information countering their argument they havn't read.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Come on, can't we all agree to understand the degrees of proving something in a scientific context? Sure, things can't be 100% proven, but they can get as close as science can take them. This is what we mean by "proven".

In that case, evolution (and many other scientific theories) are not "proven." As close as science can get is direct observation, e.g. the roundness of the Earth. The orthodox theory of evolution and various other scientific theories (e.g. the existence quarks)--while perhaps rational to believe--rely on more indirect methods.

[Tisthammerw]

Originally Posted by talisman

We simply DO see evidence for macroevolution.

refute the evidence in this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I should hasten to remind you (or if I haven't said this already, make an overdue declaration) that I don't necessarily disbelieve macroevolution. There is indeed a lot to be said for it as you say, but the evidence in some cases has its limits for the orthodox theory. Take for instance the "change" category of evidence in the website you mentioned. It does indeed denote powerful evidence for macroevolution, but the point I made about extrapolating changes made via direct observation (in posts #43 and#55) still holds. Evolution may indeed predict "farther back we look back in time, the more different life should appear from the modern biosphere" as the website said, and I count this as predicted data in evolution's favor. However, orthodox evolution does not predict the pattern of gaps we see in the fossil record (see post #68). Additionally, the fossil record and much other evidence (e.g. homology) may indeed point to evolution happening but do not establish that the orthodox mechanism for evolution is correct. The point? The evidence is not all one-sided in favor of either theory, and I think this is something we should all recognize regardless of whatever side of the creation-evolution debate we adhere to.