Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 201727 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#113262 May 29, 2014
Which one? There are 4, or not?

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#113263 May 29, 2014
If you had to teach the subject what could you leave out of it for the first to Intro, S1? Placed first to Theory and to on the next a higher concept to had gained prove to positive, as to be guided an exam?
With math and other things how to study the subject more fluently?

In depth so one can understand it from the getgo...

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#113264 May 29, 2014
So the hot and cold the ying and yang effect what's it got to do in the matter of
Biopsies?

Tension spans?

Chemically deriven not yet all past for what some take? Derived ?

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#113265 May 29, 2014
A week long worth project?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113267 May 29, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW your stupidity is astounding.
"Life is not going into "entropy"..........t hat is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
No, it is a meaningless phrase. Life isn't 'going into' entropy. The total entropy of any isolated system will increase, but no living thing forms an isolated system. For that matter, no species forms an isolated system.

In particular, from the thermodynamics point of view, there is a HUGE energy source pumping entropy into our biosystem. That dominates the entropy of living things, and by extension, of evolution.
Lower life forms do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by "evolving" into higher life forms.
PERIOD
You are right. Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#113268 May 29, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW your stupidity is astounding.
When saying something like this to another poster, it is a good idea to make sure you have your facts straight. In your case, you completely misunderstand what the second law actually says.

In other words, while criticizing the stupidity of others, you are merely demonstrating how stupid you are yourself two-fold.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113269 May 29, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
My guess is that you wanted to say that SLoT *only* applies to isolated systems.
The problem with this statement is that it very much depends on exactly how you describe the SLoT. If you merely want it to say that entropy always increases, then it will only apply to isolated systems.
But, of course, there are other statements that can take into account whether the system is open or closed. So, for example, with a closed system, the second law will say that the entropy change of a system is larger than the amount of energy going out divided by the temperature, or equivalently, that dH-TdS<=0.
If you have an open system, more terms are required to get a correct statement of the second law. In all cases, the correct statement is found by considering a larger, isolated system and seeing how the part outside of the target system changes entropy.

On the other hand, we *can* consider the Gibb's free energy of the biosystem and contributions from matter going in and out of the system. Of course, the energy contribution of the sun coming into the biosphere vastly outweighs any minor entropy reduction caused by increasing complexity of the organisms in the biosphere. Whether you consider biowastes to be part of the biosystem or not is another matter, but they also contribute a *huge* amount to the entropy scorecard.
Yes, typo indeed.
Indeed I define SLoT as "the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy." Because it is the definition used by our creationists here I want to address.

You may consider biowastes to be output of the biosystem cycles.
But consider this:
1) much of the biowaste is recycled (scavengers, bacteria decomposing biowaste, plants growing on biowaste form dead plants, etc.)
2) not only the sun drives the biosystem energetically, also geothermal energy
3) there is enormous uptake of materials going into the system (respiration, mineral uptake form plants out of the soil etc.).

But the fossil stratification in the geological column records give decisively evidence that the balance of the biosystem is positive: we see a gradual (though manifold interrupted) evolution of single celled organisms to ever more complex life forms.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#113270 May 29, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW your stupidity is astounding.
"Life is not going into "entropy"..........t hat is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Lower life forms do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by "evolving" into higher life forms.
PERIOD
You misquoted him. He was pointing out how you used the idea of entropy incorrectly.

Creatards as a rule do not understand entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. But even the morons at Answers in Genesis have finally recognized that the use of the SLoT is an idiotic argument and advise against it.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113271 May 29, 2014
bramspan wrote:
I am not againts evolution theory. what I don't understand is that : within one species if only one single organism mutated, than there will be no new species. To create one new species there should be more than one organism that mutated at the same time. If the number of organism that mutated didn't achieve minimum number, then it won't create new species, but only varian within one species. One can say, that these variant are subspesies, and these subspecies can continue to reproduce itself by mixing with other subspecies or variant that possess the similar gene profile.
The question is how those variants can survive the evolution? If you mix one variant with other variant again you will not create new species and only end in creating another new variant. To create new species there should be major mutation within one genes. And to survive the evolution these major mutation should be applied at the same time to a number individuals organism within a species. Can anyone help me with this?
In ALL species ALL individuals are born with mutations ALL THE TIME.
Deleterious mutations lead, due to their very deleteriousness, to lower survival and reproduction chances. Hence they are not likely to be passed on to the next generation. their carriers die more frequently and younger and with them perishing, the deleterious mutation disappears as well from the species' genome.

Beneficial mutations though give their carriers BETTER survival and reproduction chances. They survive more often, live longer and produce more offspring. The beneficial mutations have better odds to be passed to the next generation. But better survival and reproduction chances ALSO tend to get dominant in the species' genome (=gene pool) after many generations. The bigger the advantage of the mutation, the less generations it takes to reach hegemony within the gene pool of the species. Simple probability calculations have revealed that only a slight 1% better survival and reproduction chance will inevitably lead to gene pool dominance after many generations.

This process of filtering mutations through differential survival and reproduction chances is called natural selection.

An advantageous mutation always starts within one individual like a new word always enters the vocabulary of a language with one single person using it for the very first time.

WHICH mutations are beneficial depends on the environmental conditions: a light skin is advantageous in regions with little sunlight because filtering sunlight also hinders the production of vitamin D. But in the Tropics a pale skin is disadvantageous because it causes constant sunburn and skin cancers. Hence dark skins in African people. Vitamin D is not a problem here because the sunlight is abundant despite the dark skin.

Hence, if the environmental conditions change, they will yield a change in the impact of mutations on the genome and the DNA of the species will change (natural selection follows a different course).

When these changes in the DNA accumulate throughout the subsequent generations, the species gradually changes too. When these changes accumulated beyond the boundary where subpopulations cannot interbreed successfully any more, a new species has emerged.

Hence, to create new species there should be NO major mutation within one gene but MANY SMALL mutations over many genes accumulated over many generations.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113272 May 29, 2014
bramspan wrote:
I am not againts evolution theory. what I don't understand is that : within one species if only one single organism mutated, than there will be no new species. To create one new species there should be more than one organism that mutated at the same time. If the number of organism that mutated didn't achieve minimum number, then it won't create new species, but only varian within one species. One can say, that these variant are subspesies, and these subspecies can continue to reproduce itself by mixing with other subspecies or variant that possess the similar gene profile.
The question is how those variants can survive the evolution? If you mix one variant with other variant again you will not create new species and only end in creating another new variant. To create new species there should be major mutation within one genes. And to survive the evolution these major mutation should be applied at the same time to a number individuals organism within a species. Can anyone help me with this?
You may also compare it with language: modern Italian descended from old Latin. When a child was born in Rome in the year 0, it would learn to speak Latin and it was perfectly able to communicate intelligibly with its parents or siblings. The same applies to a child born in Rome in 2014 as well: it will learn to speak Italian and it will be perfectly able to communicate intelligibly with its parents or siblings.

YET in those two millennia Latin has slowly 'evolved' into Italian. Much has changed: 65% of the vocabulary, the grammar has even undergone major shift (complete loss of the Latin case system and loss of about 50% of the conjugation of verbs), the pronunciations of about all words, etc.

There was no one major mutation but many small steps accumulating, giving eventually rise to a new language. And yes, once

And NOTE that all changes start with ONE single individual introducing a new word or just pronouncing a word slightly different. One person once started saying "mother giveth father a present" instead of "mother giveth fatheron present" (dative case dropped). After this change having become commonplace, 25 years later another person elsewhere say "mother gives father a present", copying the loss of dative case but adding a change from conjugation of give in 2rd person from -th ending to -s ending. Etc.
Ami in Miami

United States

#113273 May 29, 2014
I don't believe I've EVER almost read anything quite so boring in my entire life.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113274 May 29, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW your stupidity is astounding.
"Life is not going into "entropy"..........t hat is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Lower life forms do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by "evolving" into higher life forms.
PERIOD
Read post #113261 by Polymath, last paragraph.
Read ANY SCIENTIFIC treatise on it.
Ask any physicist about it.

You are only making a TERRIBLE FOOL out of yourself.
PATHETIC TATTLER.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#113275 May 29, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW your stupidity is astounding.
"Life is not going into "entropy"..........t hat is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Lower life forms do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by "evolving" into higher life forms.
PERIOD
As a matter of fact, read what Answers in Genesis has to say about it in their category "Arguments Christians ShouldnÂ’t Use": https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/argu... .

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113276 May 29, 2014
Ami in Miami wrote:
I don't believe I've EVER almost read anything quite so boring in my entire life.
Then I guess your stay here in these threads will be brief, right?

[eye/roll]

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#113277 May 29, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess your stay here in these threads will be brief, right?
[eye/roll]
Hey Kong. How's it going? Your new avatar sort of threw me for a second. Must be my old age.
Ami in Miami

United States

#113278 May 29, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess your stay here in these threads will be brief, right?
[eye/roll]
Yes, very brief. You got lucky.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113279 May 29, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Kong. How's it going? Your new avatar sort of threw me for a second. Must be my old age.
Yeah...found it the other day, & thought I'd try it for a bit.

Waddaya think? New? Or Old?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#113280 May 29, 2014
Ami in Miami wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, very brief. You got lucky.
Dont get me wrong, you're welcome to stay and encouraged to contribute, but when you post:
Ami in Miami wrote:
I don't believe I've EVER almost read anything quite so boring in my entire life.
...how are we to otherwise interpret it?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#113281 May 29, 2014
Ami in Miami wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, very brief. You got lucky.
I shall alert the media.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#113282 May 29, 2014
Ami in Miami wrote:
I don't believe I've EVER almost read anything quite so boring in my entire life.
Read at bedtime, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzz zzzz
lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 min Sharlene45 194,624
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 8 min Northbound 58,142
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 12 min Princess Hey 3,540
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 18 min Jennifer Renee 18,498
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 30 min Knock off purse s... 7,883
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 33 min Knock off purse s... 27,485
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 33 min Knock off purse s... 2,658
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 38 min Knock off purse s... 32,694
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) (Jan '16) 1 hr Northbound 8,534
More from around the web