For those Ignorant regarding evolution.

[The Scientist]

For those of you who are ignorant regarding evolution www.talkorigins.org is a good place to educate yourselves.

Now, eveolution is what we know, it's a theory, but it is a scientific theory along with other theories like the theory of gravity.

So let me start by explaining what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory is the explanation of the available evidence, if new evidence are supplied then the theory either changes or ceases to exist, it is falsifiable, that means, to all you numbnuts out there, that if contradicting evidence is discovered the theory changes or a new theory replaces the old one, this is what makes the theory of evolution robust.

ID is basically a calculation, an equation used to disprove evolution using statistical equations, the same equations can be used to prove that you won't get wet if you go outside when it rains since the probability of exactly those water molecules falling on your head is beyond probable according to the ID equation, the same goes for you being born, it's also beyond the probablility of those equations.

IOW, if you want to belive ID, you have to accept that you do not exist.

Now on to the last but not least point, while ID involves the origin the theory of evolution does NOT, so the claim that one could replace the other is ridiculous at best.

And yes, we do know that evolution is true, i use it every day in my work.

 

[Amplifier]

Repost

---

Go away for a week, and you will see new threads.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
Repost

It's informative, no matter how many times it was explained in the other thread some idiots still didn't get it, now i'm making a bookmark thread to use as reference, i hope this doesn't upset you too much.

And you could post REPOST in every thread in this forum since it has ALL been discussed before, whether it is abortion, homosexual marriage, the Iraq war or whatever.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: The Scientist
And you could post REPOST in every thread in this forum since it has ALL been discussed before

That is exactly what he is doing. One of many examples

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: The Scientist
And you could post REPOST in every thread in this forum since it has ALL been discussed before

That is exactly what he is doing. One of many examples

Heh, i guess my response was wasted on him then.

 

[piasabird]

Most people learn what a theory is in school at one time or another. A theory of gravity might be that things tend to fall down and gravity is the force that makes things fall. You could drop a rock or a bowling ball off the tower of Piza and it will fall unless it is filled with some substance that is so light it rises, i.e. Helium Baloon.

However, a theory requires an hypothesis, a body of evidence, and some written explanation about how you came to that conclusion.

Saying because a person is different today compared to yesterday is not exactly evolution. One interesting thing I would like to see is a textbook definition explaining what evolution is. What does the Theory exactly state.

You can not drop a lizard and see it turn into a bird. Just because you have some bones of some animal that no longer walks the earth, it does not mean that animal evolved. It might just mean it went extinct and no longer exists. We have been breeding horses on the earth a really long time, and through breeding we can make new breeds, or maybe even a donkey, but did that mean the horse has evolved or did it just have a variation in genetic structure. When my korean wife gave birth to my son, I did not consider that evolution even though I am mostly caucasion. However that was a change, so why was it not evolution? My son is still a human being. He has the same number of bones and he is still a healthy human being.

Everyone seems to put so much importance to proving that evolution is a fact, that it seems if it is not a fact, that their whole concept of the world is somehow wrong and they are ignorant. Why does someone have to be ignorant if they disagree? It seems to be that some scientists and biologists are pinning everything they think to be a fact on the theory of evolution. It is like their whole existence may be flawed if it is not true. If someone says it is not true they go into a tizzy fit and start calling people ignorant. This is a very interesting dilemna.

If 200 scientests all said balck people are inferior it does not make it true, it just means they are suffering from a dillusion.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: piasabird
but did that mean the horse has evolved or did it just have a variation in genetic structure.

Variation in genetic structure = evolution.

Evolution states that we aren't exactly the same as our parents. Over generations, those changes can be signficant. It is so common sense, that some of us cannot understand those who don't see it.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Most people learn what a theory is in school at one time or another. A theory of gravity might be that things tend to fall down and gravity is the force that makes things fall. You could drop a rock or a bowling ball off the tower of Piza and it will fall unless it is filled with some substance that is so light it rises, i.e. Helium Baloon.

However, a theory requires an hypothesis, a body of evidence, and some written explanation about how you came to that conclusion.

Saying because a person is different today compared to yesterday is not exactly evolution. One interesting thing I would like to see is a textbook definition explaining what evolution is. What does the Theory exactly state.

You can not drop a lizard and see it turn into a bird. Just because you have some bones of some animal that no longer walks the earth, it does not mean that animal evolved. It might just mean it went extinct and no longer exists. We have been breeding horses on the earth a really long time, and through breeding we can make new breeds, or maybe even a donkey, but did that mean the horse has evolved or did it just have a variation in genetic structure. When my korean wife gave birth to my son, I did not consider that evolution even though I am mostly caucasion. However that was a change, so why was it not evolution? My son is still a human being. He has the same number of bones and he is still a healthy human being.

Everyone seems to put so much importance to proving that evolution is a fact, that it seems if it is not a fact, that their whole concept of the world is somehow wrong and they are ignorant. Why does someone have to be ignorant if they disagree? It seems to be that some scientists and biologists are pinning everything they think to be a fact on the theory of evolution. It is like their whole existence may be flawed if it is not true. If someone says it is not true they go into a tizzy fit and start calling people ignorant. This is a very interesting dilemna.

If 200 scientests all said balck people are inferior it does not make it true, it just means they are suffering from a dillusion.

You are the exact ignorant i am adressing with this thread, you didn't read my OP and you completely disregard of the science behind it.

We use the scientific theory of evolution to predict the upcoming virus, to create a vaccine, unfortunantly for you no Americans will get it (too costly) but in other countries we do vaccinate those at risk, these predictions are correct in 100 cases out of 100, they are NEVER wrong.

We are satisfied with a theory that proves to be correct 100 times out of 100, why should we not be? We regard the evidence as we see it, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, you'd have to study it like i do to understand it.

There is simply no doubt, none what so ever, that evolution is correct, if there is in your mind, then the HIV virus could not have evolved to a human virus and you are risk free, the same goes for the current cold and influensa viruses, all evolved from animal viruses.

IOW, if you had a cold, you cannot possibly disagree with me, if you did and you do, then you are just downright stupid.

 

[Deudalus]

ID is basically a calculation, an equation used to disprove evolution using statistical equations

Are you insisting that you can't believe that we evolved as well as believing that there is some sort of higher being that set the universe in motion?

I see it as sort of demanding that it has to simply be one or the other considering one attempts to explain what sparked life where as the other attempts to explain how life has changed since its existance.

For example, Darwin's theories on evolution were all based on the assumption that an organism capable of reproducing was already present. He makes no attempt to discern the origin of life which is what ID does.

Also, how do you throw out the window the problem of the laws of thermodynamics and that they disagree with the theory of evolution.

Note: I don't doubt that evolution is taking place every day. However, thermodynamics does contradict early evolutionary theories and thermodynamics is one of the most rock solid laws in science.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
However, thermodynamics does contradict early evolutionary theories and thermodynamics is one of the most rock solid laws in science.

Evolution: highly ordered DNA becomes disordered over time.
Thermodynamics: ordered things become disordered over time.

No conflict there.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
For example, Darwin's theories on evolution were all based on the assumption that an organism capable of reproducing was already present. He makes no attempt to discern the origin of life which is what ID does.

You're right about Darwin, but ID creationism explicitly states that evolution can't produce most existing organisms so it goes much further than you state above.

Also, how do you throw out the window the problem of the laws of thermodynamics and that they disagree with the theory of evolution.

Note: I don't doubt that evolution is taking place every day. However, thermodynamics does contradict early evolutionary theories and thermodynamics is one of the most rock solid laws in science.

Why do you think thermodynamics disagrees with evolution? If the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevented a simple structure from becoming a more complex one, it would forbid natural gestation as well as natural selection.

 

[Deudalus]

Evolution: highly ordered DNA becomes disordered over time.
Thermodynamics: ordered things become disordered over time.

Then evolution is not a contrary opinion to ID as the OP suggests.

In order for evolution to have been the building block that created life it would have had to ignore the second law which as you state is "ordered things/DNA become disordered over time".

If we assume this is true, then evoultion cannot explain the origin of life because the origin of life logically involves becoming organized rather than disorganized. Thus, ID and evolution is really a pointless debate because the two aren't trying to explain the same things at all.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

ID is basically a calculation, an equation used to disprove evolution using statistical equations

Are you insisting that you can't believe that we evolved as well as believing that there is some sort of higher being that set the universe in motion?

I see it as sort of demanding that it has to simply be one or the other considering one attempts to explain what sparked life where as the other attempts to explain how life has changed since its existance.

For example, Darwin's theories on evolution were all based on the assumption that an organism capable of reproducing was already present. He makes no attempt to discern the origin of life which is what ID does.

Also, how do you throw out the window the problem of the laws of thermodynamics and that they disagree with the theory of evolution.

Note: I don't doubt that evolution is taking place every day. However, thermodynamics does contradict early evolutionary theories and thermodynamics is one of the most rock solid laws in science.

i'm telling you what ID is, and that is it, nothing more was implied by what i stated and your rant is kindly disregarded.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Evolution: highly ordered DNA becomes disordered over time.
Thermodynamics: ordered things become disordered over time.

Then evolution is not a contrary opinion to ID as the OP suggests.

In order for evolution to have been the building block that created life it would have had to ignore the second law which as you state is "ordered things/DNA become disordered over time".

If we assume this is true, then evoultion cannot explain the origin of life because the origin of life logically involves becoming organized rather than disorganized. Thus, ID and evolution is really a pointless debate because the two aren't trying to explain the same things at all.

Yes it is, ID states that ALL were created using intelligent design, as were, without evolution.

Please read up on ID AND evolution before you post again.

I thought we were going to have a debate here, not someones opinon twisting ideas presented.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Evolution: highly ordered DNA becomes disordered over time.
Thermodynamics: ordered things become disordered over time.

Then evolution is not a contrary opinion to ID as the OP suggests.

In order for evolution to have been the building block that created life it would have had to ignore the second law which as you state is "ordered things/DNA become disordered over time"

If we assume this is true, then evoultion cannot explain the origin of life because the origin of life logically involves becoming organized rather than disorganized. Thus, ID and evolution is really a pointless debate because the two aren't trying to explain the same things at all.

If everything becomes disorganized over time, how does high entropy water become low entropy ice without divine intervention? Likewise, how does an acorn become an oak tree?

 

[Deudalus]

You're right about Darwin, but ID creationism explicitly states that evolution can't produce most existing organisms so it goes much further than you state above.

I would agree that evolution cannot explain the origin of life however evolution does explain how life has evolved over time since life began.

I believe in ID because I do not believe that time is a gigantic loop and I further believe that saying "oh this was always here" is a cop out. I believe in The Big Bang Theory but I further realize that for the singularity to explode which created the "Big Bang" the sinularity would to have been created from something which no one has attempted to explain.

I'm not a Christian that relies more on acceptance rather than critical thinking. It is critical thinking that will not allow me to simply accept that evolution or The Big Bang "just is".

Why do you think thermodynamics disagrees with evolution? If the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevented a simple structure from becoming a more complex one, it would forbid natural gestation as well as natural selection.

Because in order for life to be created cells would have had to order themselves and become more complex which would in turn create proteins, DNA, and all of the other goo that makes life.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that this is impossible because everything becomes more disorderly rather than orderly over time.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Evolution: highly ordered DNA becomes disordered over time.
Thermodynamics: ordered things become disordered over time.

Then evolution is not a contrary opinion to ID as the OP suggests.

In order for evolution to have been the building block that created life it would have had to ignore the second law which as you state is "ordered things/DNA become disordered over time"

If we assume this is true, then evoultion cannot explain the origin of life because the origin of life logically involves becoming organized rather than disorganized. Thus, ID and evolution is really a pointless debate because the two aren't trying to explain the same things at all.

If everything becomes disorganized over time, how does high entropy water become low entropy ice without divine intervention? Likewise, how does an acorn become an oak tree?

Why even bother, his arguments are so stupid they don't deserve an answer, he doesn't know the first thing about evolution or science, you can debate with him until you are blue in the face, you'll use science, he'll use his imagination and opinion, i think we have concluded who wins before this debate ever came to happen.

 

[Deudalus]

Yes it is, ID states that ALL were created using intelligent design, as were, without evolution.

Please read up on ID AND evolution before you post again.

I thought we were going to have a debate here, not someones opinon twisting ideas presented.

So are you telling me that I can't subscribe to some parts; I have to subscribe to the whole?

I can't believe evolution has, is, and will happen throughout time and yet believe that evolution didn't create life?

Well then, you show me a fact that shows how the theory of evolution can create life or you can go get educated. There is no singular scientific theory, law, presumption, or opinion that will cover all of life.

Evolution does not have to encompass everything nor does ID. It is only the zealots who would tell you that must be.

 

[The Scientist]

Ok Daedelus, so you are telling me that evolution is wrong, that our predictions that are ALWAYS right are wrong, that we do not know for a fact hat evolution occurred and that we don't prove that every single day in our labs?

In that case, you are not receptible to the viruses that were existant long ago, therefory you can never get a cold nor influensa, unless evolution occured.

You tell me.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Yes it is, ID states that ALL were created using intelligent design, as were, without evolution.

Please read up on ID AND evolution before you post again.

I thought we were going to have a debate here, not someones opinon twisting ideas presented.

So are you telling me that I can't subscribe to some parts; I have to subscribe to the whole?

I can't believe evolution has, is, and will happen throughout time and yet believe that evolution didn't create life?

Well then, you show me a fact that shows how the theory of evolution can create life or you can go get educated. There is no singular scientific theory, law, presumption, or opinion that will cover all of life.

Evolution does not have to encompass everything nor does ID. It is only the zealots who would tell you that must be.

I'm basically telling you that thinking that evolution is not true is just not knowing enough about the subject.

Evolution, per definition (which you are obviously to daft to get) could not have CREATED life. That's another theory, not related to evolution.

i REALLY wish you would at least TRY to gain some information by READING the links provided to you, here is one www.talkorigins.com

If you are going to continue to argue because of ignorance i see no point what so ever to continue this debate.

 

[Deudalus]

If everything becomes disorganized over time, how does high entropy water become low entropy ice without divine intervention? Likewise, how does an acorn become an oak tree?

An acorn would actually be deemed as more complex than the oak tree though not as immense I would imagine. If that is false then by all means prove otherwise. But just because something grows does not mean it becomes more complex, it is simply getting larger.

If you are truly trying to discredit the second law of thermodynamics then you can argue with Einstein, Newton, and all of the other great scientists of the past and today who consider it fact.

You will be hard pressed to even find an evolution proponent that will take your line here. They are all continuing to argue that evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not that it is false which is apparently what you are trying to argue.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Because in order for life to be created cells would have had to order themselves and become more complex which would in turn create proteins, DNA, and all of the other goo that makes life.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that this is impossible because everything becomes more disorderly rather than orderly over time.

That is just a completely false interpretation of thermo. The world becomes disordered over time. However, specific things can and do become ordered.

Can you take a messy pile of legos into an ordered lego car? Yep? Does that break the laws of thermo? No. Why not? Since you had to burn a lot of ordered sugar molecules in order to have the energy to move your arms to order the legos.

 

[Deudalus]

I'm basically telling you that thinking that evolution is not true is just not knowing enough about the subject.

Evolution, per definition (which you are obviously to daft to get) could not have CREATED life. That's another theory, not related to evolution.

i REALLY wish you would at least TRY to gain some information by READING the links provided to you, here is one www.talkorigins.com

If you are going to continue to argue because of ignorance i see no point what so ever to continue this debate.

When did I state that evolution was not true? In fact I stated time and time again that I believed evolution was true.

What I did state though is that evolution does not make any attempt to explain the origin of life. It assumes that there already is life.

 

[Deudalus]

Can you take a messy pile of legos into an ordered lego car? Yep? Does that break the laws of thermo? No. Why not? Since you had to burn a lot of ordered sugar molecules in order to have the energy to move your arms to order the legos.

O really?

Then lets test your hypothesis.

Dump a bunch of legos onto your floor and see how long it takes them to assemble themselves into anything complex.

Call me when it doesn't happen.

http://tccsa.tc/archives/debate/olson_vs_holloway.html

That's an interesting link of a critique of an evolution pro-ponent. I don't agree with everything that is stated, but you have to admit he does have a point.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

If everything becomes disorganized over time, how does high entropy water become low entropy ice without divine intervention? Likewise, how does an acorn become an oak tree?

An acorn would actually be deemed as more complex than the oak tree though not as immense I would imagine. If that is false then by all means prove otherwise. But just because something grows does not mean it becomes more complex, it is simply getting larger.

If you are truly trying to discredit the second law of thermodynamics then you can argue with Einstein, Newton, and all of the other great scientists of the past and today who consider it fact.

You will be hard pressed to even find an evolution proponent that will take your line here. They are all continuing to argue that evolution does not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not that it is false which is apparently what you are trying to argue.

Hehehe, oh man, the setup is so delicious, if it wasn't because this is cquarks smash hit to take i'd do it.

This man has NO idea of Einstein, Newton, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of physics or the theory of evolution, he is throwing out statements that are mere guesses and he misses his target by 96^32 miles.