Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE END OF EVOLUTION?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 16 of 284 (491753)
12-20-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 5:01 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Evolution MUST reach equilibrium at some point.
That is not accurate.
But if you believe it is true, then please tell us why evolution must reach equilibrium. And please don't bring up the second law nonsense; it simply does not apply here.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 5:01 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 17 of 284 (491756)
12-20-2008 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 5:01 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Lack of facts has never been an obstacle to the evolutionary theorists from forging ahead with their theory.
Total assertion on your part, and utterly false.
Well one of the problems is that the meaning of the TOE changes every other day.
Total assertion on your part, and utterly false.
But I can guarantee that I wouldn't last through an hours lecture on Biology or Geology. I don't consider disciplines that are based on unsupported assumptions science.
This statement betrays an unbelievable level of ignorance and makes me seriously doubt your claim to have two 'degrees'.
And there is no requirement that a system be closed to reach equilibrium. ALL systems reach equilibrium. That's a law of nature.
No, it is not.
The temperature of a pot of boiling water will reach equilibrium at 100C irrespective of how much energy you put into the system. The earth is another. Evolution MUST reach equilibrium at some point. When is the question.
This merely provides unquestionable evidence that you have no clue as to what is meant by 'equilibrium'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 5:01 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 7:15 PM cavediver has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 284 (491757)
12-20-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 5:01 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
There is no such thing as a closed system. And there is no requirement that a system be closed to reach equilibrium. ALL systems reach equilibrium. That's a law of nature.
Systems can vary in closure. However, this was the point, there are no closed systems where equilibrium would be reached and stablized. Take the universe as an example. It is said to be in equilibrium now, but due to the current expansion this equilibrium will not stay. So to will most systems who reach equilibrium not stay in equilibrium.
Evolution MUST reach equilibrium at some point.
You keep saying this and have been ask to elaborate on it. Can you explain what in evolution will reach equilibrium...?
And why would it stay stable in an ever changing planet...?

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 5:01 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 19 of 284 (491759)
12-20-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 5:01 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
I'm glad that you understand that the article consists of speculation. I hope you also understand that whether their speculation is right or wrong, it has no bearing on the ToE. The ToE is not dependant on one story of natural history or another. It is not dependant on whether the human race speciates at some future point or not.
You have not even touched on the actual Theory of Evolution at all.
Lack of facts has never been an obstacle to the evolutionary theorists from forging ahead with their theory.
A cheap shot, untrue and irrelevant.
Well one of the problems is that the meaning of the TOE changes every other day. Its a bit hard to get a grip of what it does actually means.
Untrue I'm afraid. Our knowledge of natural history, as the story of evolution, is being constantly updated, that is true. But the ToE has hardly changed since the development of the modern synthesis.
I have an interest in science, always have. I have two degrees. But I can guarantee that I wouldn't last through an hours lecture on Biology or Geology.
That is your problem. The fact remains that you are not obliged to "rely on the experts", you can find out for yourself. If you can't be arsed, that is your look out.
I don't consider disciplines that are based on unsupported assumptions science.
Since you admit that you're knowledge of biology leaves something to be desired, yo are poorly placed to accuse "experts in the field" of basing their work on assumptions.
You have provided no evidence that any field of scientific endeavour is based upon assumptions.
There is no such thing as a closed system.
If that is the case then you had better alert the Nobel prize folks, because you have just rewritten the book on physics. The universe, when viewed as a whole, is a closed system.
ALL systems reach equilibrium. That's a law of nature.
Really? Which law? Certainly not the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The temperature of a pot of boiling water will reach equilibrium at 1000C irrespective of how much energy you put into the system.
This is just nonsense. Equilibrium with what? What on Earth are you talking about?
Evolution MUST reach equilibrium at some point. When is the question.
No, the question is what any of your rambling misapprehensions have to do with the Theory of Evolution. Nothing I suspect.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 5:01 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 284 (491761)
12-20-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by cavediver
12-20-2008 5:40 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Cavediver.
You come into this thread with all guns ablazing. With a WTF are you taking about and I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm a liar. You have contributed nothing of any value.
Cavedweller writes:
This statement betrays an unbelievable level of ignorance and makes me seriously doubt your claim to have two 'degrees'.
The reality is that I don't give a flying fuck what you think. Now piss off out of this thread so that we can discuss the issue at hand.
Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
blz paskal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 12-20-2008 5:40 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by cavediver, posted 12-20-2008 7:23 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 26 by fallacycop, posted 12-21-2008 12:02 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 21 of 284 (491762)
12-20-2008 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 7:15 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Now piss of out of this thread so that we can discuss the issue at hand.
Unfortunately, you have no topic to discuss given your woeful lack of knowledge regarding the subjects that have been raised. Perhaps you can start again and describe exactly what issue you had in mind. Was it the current state of human evolution? Or something to do with thermodynamics? Or the 'unfounded assumptions' that lie behind the entire fields of biology and geology? Or are you just a little bit confused? I'm going to bed. Perhaps you can be less confused by the morning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 7:15 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 22 of 284 (491763)
12-20-2008 7:57 PM


Behave!
You will all stop commenting on each other. You will each put forward your positions and support them.
Thermodynamics is not the topic of this thread just the nature of human evolution.
If the thread doesn't reach a higher plane of consciousness it will be closed.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 284 (491782)
12-21-2008 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
LTA writes:
Evolution is not like every other scientific theory that can be expressed mathematically, so we have no way of checking it's status.
Right... and the germ theory of disease could be mathematically expressed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 2:20 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 284 (491793)
12-21-2008 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 3:27 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Although thermodynamics is part of the OP there seems to be no sensible relationship between it and the actual contents of the two articles.
So far as I can see the first article speculates that human evolution has ended now, at the present day. It seems to be largely based on a fairly extreme view within evolutionary theory, that all important evolutionary change takes place during speciation events.
The second article reports on a historical study indicating that human evolution has been relatively fast over the last few milennia. The article is not very clear about the periods involved and I would strongly recommend looking for a better source than a popular press article. It would be fair to say that the second article seriously undermines the assumption underlying the first, but that seems to be the only significant conflict that can be found in the material presented so far.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:27 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-13-2009 7:09 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 25 of 284 (491795)
12-21-2008 8:38 AM


I'd have to admit that there is at least some merit to what LucyTheApe is saying but it's not all-encompassing. The evolution has not stopped in parts of Africa - Rwanda, Benin, Togo, etc. where people are living shorter lives than chimanzees. And it's a fact - the first HIV-resistent persons came from Africa - the prostitutes that have never seen a condom in their entire life. Have a look:
Hope for Aids cure as prostitutes defy virus in the slums
Hope for Aids cure as prostitutes defy virus in the slums | World news | The Guardian
It is a safe bet to say that it's evolution at its finest, and it may well save us from plague of the 21 century. It's terrifying and inhuman but evolution is simply weeding out the unfit. Weep
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 26 of 284 (491812)
12-21-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 7:15 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Now, now, Lucy The Ape. Don't let Cavediver's statements ticle your ego. He was only pointing out that many of your statements were facually incorrect. You're really out of your depth here. Why don't you take the time to read some more about themodynamics and evolution before making such sweeping statements? You might actually learn something for a change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 7:15 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 27 of 284 (491873)
12-23-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 5:01 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Lucy writes:
There is no such thing as a closed system.
And there is no requirement that a system be closed to reach equilibrium.
I agree with Onfire in saying that there is no such thing as a perfectly closed system except for the universe itself, by the very definition of what the "natural universe" is (a closed system containing all matter and energy and it's physical laws i.e. thermodynamics, etc.). However, the overwhelming energy from the sun effectively closes off the biological system of life on the Earth and provided it with a seemingly unending source of energy and thus it is effectively (though not absolutely) a closed thermodynamic system. With an unending source of enegy (at least for the next several billion years) there is no way that all the chemical reactions of life can come to an equilibrium simultaneously. Thus biological equilibrium, which depends on chemical equilibrium, is impossible in a system with a large steady supply of energy which provides a catalyst for change.
ALL systems reach equilibrium. That's a law of nature.The temperature of a pot of boiling water will reach equilibrium at 1000C irrespective of how much energy you put into the system. The earth is another. Evolution MUST reach equilibrium at some point. When is the question.
How is a boiling pot of water at equilibrium? What is unchanging about a boiling pot of water? The molecules water are continuously being evaporated into steam? How is that unchanging? And what does this have to do with the biological processes of evolution?
Just my two cents.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 5:01 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 284 (502751)
03-13-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
12-21-2008 8:08 AM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
The second law of thermodynamics holds right?
Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2008 8:08 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peepul, posted 03-13-2009 9:02 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 03-13-2009 9:19 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 03-13-2009 1:12 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 29 of 284 (502770)
03-13-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by LucyTheApe
03-13-2009 7:09 AM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
quote:
The second law of thermodynamics holds right?
Yes, but strictly only to systems that are already in equilibrium. Extending it to non-equilibrium systems is an approximation.
Page not found – Darwiniana
quote:
The fact that classical thermodynamics is limited to equilibrium situations may come as a surprise. In introductory physics classes, students apply thermodynamics to dynamic systems such as car engines to calculate quantities such as efficiency. But these applications make an implicit assumption: that we can approximate a dynamic process as an idealized succession of equilibrium states. That is, we imagine that the system is always in equilibrium, even if the equilibrium shifts from moment to moment. Consequently, the efficiency we calculate is only an upper limit. The value that engines reach in practice is somewhat lower because they operate under nonequilibrium conditions.
The second law describes how a succession of equilibrium states can be irreversible, so that the system cannot return to its original state without exacting a price from its surroundings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-13-2009 7:09 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 30 of 284 (502775)
03-13-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by LucyTheApe
03-13-2009 7:09 AM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
LTA writes:
The second law of thermodynamics holds right?
We have never observed any instance where it does not.
But the question is - What do you think the 2nd LoT actually states?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by LucyTheApe, posted 03-13-2009 7:09 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024