For those Ignorant regarding evolution.

[The Scientist]

I have this friend, a 25 year old hottie from IIDF that i'd like to see argue with wome here, she's a devil when it comes to humorously posting knowledge and one of the most promising scientists i know in this field of science.

I think i should invite her over here.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: The Scientist

Originally posted by: Tab
I don't have a problem with elitists, hell I'll admit I've acted like an elitist multiple times. I just have a problem when we just get hot-headed and don't present agruments.

Can someone address my question.

You had a question?

Didn't notice you answered it, opps.

No worries, i was just wondering if you didn't think i had answered it properly.

If you have ANY questions at all regarding evolution then you can direct them to me, i'll answer as well as i can and direct questions to others if i am not qualified to answer them (questions regarding abiogenesis would classify as such, it is not my field and i cannot answer them properly).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: The Scientist
I know the comparison limps on only one leg, but when people fail to recognize the validity of a scientific theory as opposed to a philosophical theory it's IMO a valid comparison, both are scientific theories and both have enough evidence to back them up to be considered as valid in the scientific community, one is to the other as a barn is to a piece of belly button lint though so it's not very comparable in that way.

Evolution, as we know it and use it is a fact of reality, you can either deny reality or accept it, but that is the only two choices you have from my point of view, this is what i do, i study the viruses and yes, this fall, just as last fall, we have the vaccines ready, this is very costly though and even people with premium insurances in the US won't get this, all elderly and sick in EU and every other nation i am aware of (this includes all or eastern Europe and Russia, all of asia including NC) are getting it.

I'm not saying anyone HAS to believe in it, since i don't want the scientologists to stop waiting for that UFO or the christians stop waiting for the EU to be the next empire and for the antichrist to rise withing (you'd be surprised how many, you really would), but as of this moment on, and the past reality, this is what we are dealing with, evolution is truth, to the best of our knowledge, and i can promise you Vic, if i'd ever get hold of a better version, i'll tell you first.

An excellent response! Thank you. And yes, people will always believe what they will despite all the evidence. No point pounding your head against the wall until it's bloody.

I'm extremely curious about these vaccines. What viruses they are to treat, and why they won't be brought to America (I'm thinking it's more FDA than cost).

 

[Tom]

theres a fine line between acceptance of scientific theory as fact for the purpose of observation and scientific advancement,

and converting scientific theory into a psuedo-religion that cannot be questioned.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: cquark

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.

I've got a PhD in physics; I understand thermodynamics and have not suggested that the second law is invalid in my posts. I've just offered you some questions to help you understand the consequences of your view of thermodynamics.

In the oak tree example, the acorn cells have differentiated into a wide variety of tissues and a large scale structure has formed, making it more complex than the acorn. However, let's return to the water freezing into ice problem, as it's a simpler example.

You start with disordered liquid water at 0C, which then freezes, forming a highly ordered hexagonal crystal lattice. How can you explain this if ordered systems always become disordered? Is there something about the second law that you've forgotten that allows this to happen or does water freezing require divine intervention?

You should have stuck with the acorn example.
Lets even assume that he is correct an oak tree is less complex then an acorn. But then what happens when that oak tree has its own hundreds of acorns on its branches. No one can clame that many acorns are less complex then one acorn.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: The Scientist
I know the comparison limps on only one leg, but when people fail to recognize the validity of a scientific theory as opposed to a philosophical theory it's IMO a valid comparison, both are scientific theories and both have enough evidence to back them up to be considered as valid in the scientific community, one is to the other as a barn is to a piece of belly button lint though so it's not very comparable in that way.

Evolution, as we know it and use it is a fact of reality, you can either deny reality or accept it, but that is the only two choices you have from my point of view, this is what i do, i study the viruses and yes, this fall, just as last fall, we have the vaccines ready, this is very costly though and even people with premium insurances in the US won't get this, all elderly and sick in EU and every other nation i am aware of (this includes all or eastern Europe and Russia, all of asia including NC) are getting it.

I'm not saying anyone HAS to believe in it, since i don't want the scientologists to stop waiting for that UFO or the christians stop waiting for the EU to be the next empire and for the antichrist to rise withing (you'd be surprised how many, you really would), but as of this moment on, and the past reality, this is what we are dealing with, evolution is truth, to the best of our knowledge, and i can promise you Vic, if i'd ever get hold of a better version, i'll tell you first.

An excellent response! Thank you. And yes, people will always believe what they will despite all the evidence. No point pounding your head against the wall until it's bloody.

I'm extremely curious about these vaccines. What viruses they are to treat, and why they won't be brought to America (I'm thinking it's more FDA than cost).

The point as we were making the predictionary treatments were that they would be isolated incidents in the first place (and this failed misrably as the influensa viruses transferred worldwide within weeks) so we were left with another solution which is refrerred to as rapid response treatement, this means analyzing the virus structure and the antibodies and predicting the circumvetntion of those to create other antibodies, basically we are pedicting the outcome of evolution and this isn't microevolution, this is macroevolution.

From this evolutionary prediction we know this virus, this is a costly process (we are talking 8-10x as costly as a new heart medication) and very few benefit from this worldwide as it takes a lot to grow and sustain vaccines, the US has not been interrested for the last decade, most other countries we deal with have, I am getting shots for my daugher who is entitled to it because of her asthma but many others who need it won't get it.

If you have any questions, please rever to this thread or PM them, i'll ansser them if i can.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark

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.

I've got a PhD in physics; I understand thermodynamics and have not suggested that the second law is invalid in my posts. I've just offered you some questions to help you understand the consequences of your view of thermodynamics.

In the oak tree example, the acorn cells have differentiated into a wide variety of tissues and a large scale structure has formed, making it more complex than the acorn. However, let's return to the water freezing into ice problem, as it's a simpler example.

You start with disordered liquid water at 0C, which then freezes, forming a highly ordered hexagonal crystal lattice. How can you explain this if ordered systems always become disordered? Is there something about the second law that you've forgotten that allows this to happen or does water freezing require divine intervention?

You should have stuck with the acorn example.
Lets even assume that he is correct an oak tree is less complex then an acorn. But then what happens when that oak tree has its own hundreds of acorns on its branches. No one can clame that many acorns are less complex then one acorn.

You being ignorant to the difference does not change the facts of evolution.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

FWIW, you appear to be arguing that the theory of evolution is just as robust as the theory of gravity... and nothing else without discussing the actual merits of the theory itself.
I am NOT arguing or disputing the theory of evolution, just the illogical (and rather absurdly condescending) presentation of your argument. The words "ignorant" and "numbnuts," along with the obvious recitation of what a theory is, combined with your unsubstantiated self-appeal to authority, really give your post all the appearance of a flamebait troll.

Agreed with Vic on all counts.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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.

FWIW, you appear to be arguing that the theory of evolution is just as robust as the theory of gravity... and nothing else without discussing the actual merits of the theory itself.
I am NOT arguing or disputing the theory of evolution, just the illogical (and rather absurdly condescending) presentation of your argument. The words "ignorant" and "numbnuts," along with the obvious recitation of what a theory is, combined with your unsubstantiated self-appeal to authority, really give your post all the appearance of a flamebait troll.

Agreed with Vic on all counts.

Then perhaps if you can read further you'll agree with me as vic did or just disagree, i any way, this was a step towards this.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark
However, let's return to the water freezing into ice problem, as it's a simpler example.

You start with disordered liquid water at 0C, which then freezes, forming a highly ordered hexagonal crystal lattice. How can you explain this if ordered systems always become disordered? Is there something about the second law that you've forgotten that allows this to happen or does water freezing require divine intervention?

You should have stuck with the acorn example.
Lets even assume that he is correct an oak tree is less complex then an acorn. But then what happens when that oak tree has its own hundreds of acorns on its branches. No one can clame that many acorns are less complex then one acorn.

The ice example is better because anyone who's taken high school chemistry or physics should be able to perform the calculation to show that entropy decreases in freezing.

Entropy is defined as dS = dQ/T

To make the calculation easy, let's assume we have one mole of water.

Let T be 0C or equivalently 273K.

The change in heat due to freezing dQ is the latent heat of freezing, -6.01 kJ/mole, multiplied by the amount of water, which is 1 mole.

That gives us the following change in entropy

dS = (-6.01 kJ/mole) * (1 mole) / 273K

= -22.0 kJ/K

which is obviously a decrease in entropy, as dS is a negative number.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark
However, let's return to the water freezing into ice problem, as it's a simpler example.

You start with disordered liquid water at 0C, which then freezes, forming a highly ordered hexagonal crystal lattice. How can you explain this if ordered systems always become disordered? Is there something about the second law that you've forgotten that allows this to happen or does water freezing require divine intervention?

You should have stuck with the acorn example.
Lets even assume that he is correct an oak tree is less complex then an acorn. But then what happens when that oak tree has its own hundreds of acorns on its branches. No one can clame that many acorns are less complex then one acorn.

The ice example is better because anyone who's taken high school chemistry or physics should be able to perform the calculation to show that entropy decreases in freezing.

Entropy is defined as dS = dQ/T

To make the calculation easy, let's assume we have one mole of water.

Let T be 0C or equivalently 273K.

The change in heat due to freezing dQ is the latent heat of freezing, -6.01 kJ/mole, multiplied by the amount of water, which is 1 mole.

That gives us the following change in entropy

dS = (-6.01 kJ/mole) * (1 mole) / 273K

= -22.0 kJ/K

which is obviously a decrease in entropy, as dS is a negative number.

Excuse me, but what relevance does this have to this thread?

I do understand your intention but it's severely misplaced, in this thread (my thread i make the rules) we provide evidence within the oranism to substantiate evidence.

Don't take this as critique, it was certainly interesting and you are obviously knowlegable within your field but i'd prefer if we stay in this field.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark
However, let's return to the water freezing into ice problem, as it's a simpler example.

You start with disordered liquid water at 0C, which then freezes, forming a highly ordered hexagonal crystal lattice. How can you explain this if ordered systems always become disordered? Is there something about the second law that you've forgotten that allows this to happen or does water freezing require divine intervention?

You should have stuck with the acorn example.
Lets even assume that he is correct an oak tree is less complex then an acorn. But then what happens when that oak tree has its own hundreds of acorns on its branches. No one can clame that many acorns are less complex then one acorn.

The ice example is better because anyone who's taken high school chemistry or physics should be able to perform the calculation to show that entropy decreases in freezing.

Entropy is defined as dS = dQ/T

To make the calculation easy, let's assume we have one mole of water.

Let T be 0C or equivalently 273K.

The change in heat due to freezing dQ is the latent heat of freezing, -6.01 kJ/mole, multiplied by the amount of water, which is 1 mole.

That gives us the following change in entropy

dS = (-6.01 kJ/mole) * (1 mole) / 273K

= -22.0 kJ/K

which is obviously a decrease in entropy, as dS is a negative number.

Yeah but the people who use the second law wouldn't know a mole if it hit them in the back of the head. With the acorn it is clear that one acorn is less order then 100+ acorns on an oak tree. If order most decrease then how could an acorn make many copies of it self.

 

[The Scientist]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark
However, let's return to the water freezing into ice problem, as it's a simpler example.

You start with disordered liquid water at 0C, which then freezes, forming a highly ordered hexagonal crystal lattice. How can you explain this if ordered systems always become disordered? Is there something about the second law that you've forgotten that allows this to happen or does water freezing require divine intervention?

You should have stuck with the acorn example.
Lets even assume that he is correct an oak tree is less complex then an acorn. But then what happens when that oak tree has its own hundreds of acorns on its branches. No one can clame that many acorns are less complex then one acorn.

The ice example is better because anyone who's taken high school chemistry or physics should be able to perform the calculation to show that entropy decreases in freezing.

Entropy is defined as dS = dQ/T

To make the calculation easy, let's assume we have one mole of water.

Let T be 0C or equivalently 273K.

The change in heat due to freezing dQ is the latent heat of freezing, -6.01 kJ/mole, multiplied by the amount of water, which is 1 mole.

That gives us the following change in entropy

dS = (-6.01 kJ/mole) * (1 mole) / 273K

= -22.0 kJ/K

which is obviously a decrease in entropy, as dS is a negative number.

Yeah but the people who use the second law wouldn't know a mole if it hit them in the back of the head. With the acorn it is clear that one acorn is less order then 100+ acorns on an oak tree. If order most decrease then how could an acorn make many copies of it self.

He brought evidence, you could not clear it, he wins, hand down.

Now if we could get back to my thread that'd be nice.

 

[Deudalus]

Ecucating the complete morons is hard, i tried and failed. You want to stay a moron and refuse to listen, fine by me, but i'll refer to this post in the future.

Must be tough when you can't spell education too

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Ecucating the complete morons is hard, i tried and failed. You want to stay a moron and refuse to listen, fine by me, but i'll refer to this post in the future.

Must be tough when you can't spell education too

It's my fourth language.

Hej
Davs
Hei.

Können sie das verstehen eller kan fu fatta det?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: The Scientist
Ecucating the complete morons is hard, i tried and failed. You want to stay a moron and refuse to listen, fine by me, but i'll refer to this post in the future.

Must be tough when you can't spell education too

It's my fourth language.

Hej
Davs
Hei.

Können sie das verstehen eller kan fu fatta det?

Oops.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: The Scientist
Ecucating the complete morons is hard, i tried and failed. You want to stay a moron and refuse to listen, fine by me, but i'll refer to this post in the future.

Must be tough when you can't spell education too

It's my fourth language.

Hej
Davs
Hei.

Können sie das verstehen eller kan fu fatta det?

Oops.

Hi big guy, long time no see, no time wasted pretending i'm someone else, i couldn't log into my account, the mods fixed it up for me.

They call me Klixxer and i'm kinda cool.

 

[Vic]

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Vic

You are ELITE??? How in the hell did that happen? ?????

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Vic

You are ELITE??? How in the hell did that happen? ?????

Huh? Heh, I've been elite since before your latest join date (they made me that back in late '03 I think... I never hit Lifer). But you were a member before that, right? Wow, how long you been gone?

 

[shimsham]

IOW, if you want to belive ID, you have to accept that you do not exist. [q/]

sounds similar to religious dogma to me

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Vic

You are ELITE??? How in the hell did that happen? ?????

Huh? Heh, I've been elite since before your latest join date (they made me that back in late '03 I think... I never hit Lifer). But you were a member before that, right? Wow, how long you been gone?

Well, i seem to be elite in some others opinon so i guess i'm in good company then .

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: shimsham

IOW, if you want to belive ID, you have to accept that you do not exist. [q/]

sounds similar to religious dogma to me

It does, doesn't it, well there is a good explanation for that, ID IS Dogna.

ID relies on a presumption of a creator an an equation you can use to provide evidence or lack thereof for anythning.

I am just showing you how flawed that ewuation is, don't blame the flaws on me, blame them on Hovind.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: The Scientist

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: cquark
However, let's return to the water freezing into ice problem, as it's a simpler example.

You start with disordered liquid water at 0C, which then freezes, forming a highly ordered hexagonal crystal lattice. How can you explain this if ordered systems always become disordered? Is there something about the second law that you've forgotten that allows this to happen or does water freezing require divine intervention?

You should have stuck with the acorn example.
Lets even assume that he is correct an oak tree is less complex then an acorn. But then what happens when that oak tree has its own hundreds of acorns on its branches. No one can clame that many acorns are less complex then one acorn.

The ice example is better because anyone who's taken high school chemistry or physics should be able to perform the calculation to show that entropy decreases in freezing.

Entropy is defined as dS = dQ/T

To make the calculation easy, let's assume we have one mole of water.

Let T be 0C or equivalently 273K.

The change in heat due to freezing dQ is the latent heat of freezing, -6.01 kJ/mole, multiplied by the amount of water, which is 1 mole.

That gives us the following change in entropy

dS = (-6.01 kJ/mole) * (1 mole) / 273K

= -22.0 kJ/K

which is obviously a decrease in entropy, as dS is a negative number.

Yeah but the people who use the second law wouldn't know a mole if it hit them in the back of the head. With the acorn it is clear that one acorn is less order then 100+ acorns on an oak tree. If order most decrease then how could an acorn make many copies of it self.

He brought evidence, you could not clear it, he wins, hand down.

Now if we could get back to my thread that'd be nice.

He has shown no evidence that freezing of ice is a better example then an acorn to show people how wrong they are to claim the second law prevents evolution.