Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

tinygiraffe wrote:

how evolution seems to be "scientifically refuted" usually:

What often happens is that an objection to evolution is raised, and an evolutionist responds with a 'you're stupid' answer.

When I asked for an example of a naturally occurring closed system to which it would apply, the answer is to launch an ad hom attack ,

Rather than contribute anything to the discussion,

you designed a strawman to caricature evolution's objectors as ignorant and illogical.

let me raise the bar for evolutionists then:

a closed system is always smaller than the entire universe. there you go.

Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

Does evolution violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

A common rebuttal from evolutionists is that the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, not open ones.

Since every naturally occurring system in the known universe is open, my question is:

to what real world systems DOES the 2nd Law apply?

emphasis (bold font) added:

Quote:

Does evolution violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

A common rebuttal from evolutionists is that the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, not open ones.

Since every naturally occurring system in the known universe is open, my question is:

to what real world systems DOES the 2nd Law apply?

one of us (is it me?) is losing track of who's who in this argument.

creationists are the one suggesting that evolution violates the 2nd law.

"evolutionists" (a nonsensical word, it's like saying "christianists")

explain that the 2nd law applies only to closed systems (all of which are smaller than the known universe.)

how does the job of finding a natural system that is closed fall to them?

you're the only one suggesting (incorrectly) that the 2nd law has anything to do with the debate in the first place. you brought it up, it's no one else's job to prove your points for you...

Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? The correct answer is NO.

You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics any better than you understand the theory of evolution.

Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

Quote:

Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

But since you want to claim that evolution violates the 2nd law, please point out the errors in the math on this site, RL.

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

parados wrote:

Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? The correct answer is NO.

You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics any better than you understand the theory of evolution.

Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

Quote:

Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

But since you want to claim that evolution violates the 2nd law, please point out the errors in the math on this site, RL.

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

It is not the 2nd Law that I take exception to parados, but rather than selective way in which it is (or isn't) applied.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? The correct answer is NO.

You don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics any better than you understand the theory of evolution.

Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics

Quote:

Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics based solely on metaphors. This in order to convince those not familiar with real thermodynamics that their sectarian religious views have scientific validity.

But since you want to claim that evolution violates the 2nd law, please point out the errors in the math on this site, RL.

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

It is not the 2nd Law that I take exception to parados, but rather than selective way in which it is (or isn't) applied.

So your problem is when others don't apply science incorrectly like you do. Glad we cleared that one up.

If you want to show how science is wrong in using the 2nd law then point out the errors in the second site I listed. Until you can actually correct the math that you claim is wrong I see no reason to believe your argument.

A good example: I've often noted that evolution violates scientific principles such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

My argument was simply a question

5. The argument from distorted science.
Creationists, have carefully learned enough of the terminology of science to attempt to disprove evolution by mouthing terminology. [This ploy is also used by mystics and alternative therapies who quote "energies" and "fields" in order to lend credibility to their ill-thought out nonsense.If science was so irrelevant why then do creationists claim to be "scientific" and mystics employ the terminology of science? They are both jealous of how well it does at explaining the universe,and try to bask in its ability hoping some of it will rub off -LB]
They do this in numerous ways, but the common example, at least in the mail I get, is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible. (see Davies and Gribbin above) The second law of thermodynamics (expresses in kindergarten terms) direction of increasing disorder,that is,in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous build-up of the complex from the simple,therefore,for that would be moving "uphill." Clearly,then,so the creationist argument runs, since, by the evolutionary process,complex forms of life form from simple forms, that process, as described by scientists, defies the second law , and so creationism must be true. This sort of argument implies a fallacy clearly visible to anyone is somehow invisible to scientists [Indeed,do creationists think scientists so stupid that they didn't see a seeming paradox that a child would notice? They systematically underestimate both Nature and scientist's abilities -LB],who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law ,and they are not blind. lt's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms, as so many of the creationists arguments are,is suitable only for kindergarten. To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system," that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole. Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously , provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change is then a complexity-loss in line with the dictates of the second law. Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the System the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continuously moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and, indeed, so would life, eventually. Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept that most people are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy in the creationist distortion. The fallacy becomes plainer, perhaps, if we consider the analogous treatment of another theory. The theory of gravitation says, in kindergarten terms, that all objects in the earth's vicinity are attracted to the earth and, therefore, fall to the ground. consequently, balloons and airplanes and rockets are clearly impossible. - If you don't accept this, you needn't accept the creationists' kindergarten view of the second law of thermodynamics either. There are many other "scientific" arguments used by creationists, some taking quite clever advantage of present areas of dispute in evolutionary theory, but every one of them is as disingenuous as the second-law argument. The "scientific" arguments are organized into special creationist textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing and which school systems are heavily pressured to accept. They are written by people who have not made any mark as scientists and, while they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts about the legitimacy of the evidence and the reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking, on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible alternative. Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of course, because none exists other than the word of the bible, which it is current creationist strategy not to use.

And again, why does there have to be a physical representation of a closed system.

There isn't a physical representation of infinity, however for mathematical purposes it still works.

real life wrote:

A good example: I've often noted that evolution violates scientific principles such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

real life wrote:

My argument was simply a question

It seems you are being dishonest here RL. Your argument was NOT a question. It was a statement that evolution violates the 2nd law. A statement you admit to having made repeatedly. Now to avoid having to deal with the actual math involved in the 2nd law you pretend you never made the statement.

So, does the 2nd Law apply to any known closed system in the universe, or are you (as ros has previously) implying that the 2nd Law only has theoretical application, not a practical one?