Rebuttal To Creationists - "Since We Can't Directly Observe Evolution..."

Good. You can correct those errors.What is your first one?

Kleinman:

---

The responses to this though appear to be made by people that don't understand either the physics or math of biological evolution.

AZPaul3:

---

Good. You can correct those errors.
​
What is your first one?

---

---

Let's start with the physics of Darwinian evolution. What are the two physical processes that Darwin described? Then tell us what laws of thermodynamics applies to these processes.

The physics of neo-Darwinian evolution (we have learned a lot in the past 163 years) are the same as the physics of life itself. An operational definition of evolution would be "the net results of populations of organisms doing what life normally does."Therefore, trying to "disprove evolution" by abusing thermodynamics et alia would also be an attempt to prove life to be impossible. That one is not going to fly -- never has, never will.But go ahead and knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to make the trip to the pantry for the microwave popcorn. I've seen this show before.

No. Why would I do that?This is your classroom. You have a problem with thermodynamics? What is it?You tell us how it works.

Kleinman:

---

Let's start with the physics of Darwinian evolution. What are the two physical processes that Darwin described? Then tell us what laws of thermodynamics applies to these processes.

dwise1:

---

The physics of neo-Darwinian evolution (we have learned a lot in the past 163 years) are the same as the physics of life itself. An operational definition of evolution would be "the net results of populations of organisms doing what life normally does."
​
Therefore, trying to "disprove evolution" by abusing thermodynamics et alia would also be an attempt to prove life to be impossible. That one is not going to fly -- never has, never will.
​
But go ahead and knock yourself out. Just don't expect me to make the trip to the pantry for the microwave popcorn. I've seen this show before.

---

---

It takes a lot of words for dwise1 to say that he doesn't know what the physical processes are that Darwin is describing. dwise1 needs a hint:

Darwin wrote:

---

For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent-species itself, will generally tend to become extinct. So it probably will be with many whole collateral lines of descent, which will be conquered by later and improved lines of descent. If, however, the modified offspring of a species get into some distinct country, or become quickly adapted to some quite new station, in which child and parent do not come into competition, both may continue to exist.

---

Kleinman:

---

Then tell us what laws of thermodynamics applies to these processes.

AZPaul3:

---

No. Why would I do that?
​
This is your classroom. You have a problem with thermodynamics? What is it?
​
You tell us how it works.

---

---

That's the point AZPaul3, you don't know how to do the physics and math of biological evolution. I don't have a problem with thermodynamics. Try reading the quote from Darwin that I posted to dwise1 and see if you can see the physical processes he is describing. Don't give up so easily. You will be surprised how simple this is.

Did that. So what? You tell me what you think it says.This is your topic, now. I'm not playing guessing games with you.{abe} BTW, No one cares what Darwin said on evolution 150 years ago. We have advanced the discipline considerably since he wrote his initial observations. If you want to look like less a fool you'll refer to quotes on the modern synthesis.

Ooh, ooh, I know. For the first one, natural selection and descent with modification. For the second one, all of them.--Percy

Kleinman:

---

Try reading the quote from Darwin that I posted

AZPaul3:

---

Did that. So what? You tell me what you think it says.
​
This is your topic, now. I'm not playing guessing games with you.

---

---

Sure, you are playing guessing games. If you weren't, you could clearly point out the physical processes that Darwin wrote about. Darwin was qualitatively correct in describing the two most important processes of biological evolution. What Darwin didn't do is describe those processes quantitatively (mathematically).What Darwin is talking about in that paragraph are two physical processes. One process is what Darwin calls "the struggle for existence" and the other process is adaptation. Do I have to spoon-feed you which laws of thermodynamics apply to each of these processes? Here's another hint. Try to figure out what the different populations are struggling for in a given environment.

AZPaul3:

---

BTW, No one cares what Darwin said on evolution 150 years ago. We have advanced the discipline considerably since he wrote his initial observations. If you want to look like less a fool you'll refer to quotes on the modern synthesis.

---

You should care about what Darwin said because he was correct. And his understanding of biological evolution explains how antimicrobial drug resistance evolves and why cancer treatments fail. Of course, if you think that modern synthesis explains this, post this explanation, you won't.

Kleinman:

---

What are the two physical processes that Darwin described? Then tell us what laws of thermodynamics applies to these processes.

Percy:

---

Ooh, ooh, I know. For the first one, natural selection and descent with modification. For the second one, all of them.

---

---

Now, we are getting somewhere. You almost got this right, Percy. Do you think that natural selection (what Darwin calls the struggle for existence or what I like to call competition between different variants in a population (and what are these variants competing for?)) and descent with modification (adaptation) are the same physical processes?

Aw, shucks, Professor Kleinman, I don't think I'm ever gonna get this evolution stuff. It's all just so complicated. So what *are* the two physical processes that Darwin described? And which of the laws of thermodynamics do they not follow?--Percy

In a lot of ways, yes, but he was not complete. The modern synthesis includes all of Darwin (modified) along with Mendel, evo-devo, population genetics and ++.No one is saying Darwin was wrong as far as his more general observations go. But if you're going to discuss evolution you need to understand more than a few passages of Darwin. You really do not understand the subject. Of course the modern synthesis explains it. The modern synthesis includes Darwin.If you really have this big a hole in your understanding of the history of the subject then I have to question your knowledge of the subject in total.Right now you are offering us nothing. What do you say is in that Darwin quote that shows any deficiency in the modern synthesis?Do you have a topic to discuss or just more staged questions?

Kleinman:

---

Now, we are getting somewhere. You almost got this right, Percy. Do you think that natural selection (what Darwin calls the struggle for existence or what I like to call competition between different variants in a population (and what are these variants competing for?)) and descent with modification (adaptation) are the same physical processes?

Percy:

---

Aw, shucks, Professor Kleinman, I don't think I'm ever gonna get this evolution stuff. It's all just so complicated. So what *are* the two physical processes that Darwin described? And which of the laws of thermodynamics do they not follow?

---

---

You can get this Percy. Just read carefully. The two processes Darwin is describing are biological competition, that's the part that natural selection acts on (relative reproductive fitness) and the other is descent with modification. Sometimes those modifications are adaptive. This process depends on mutations.These processes certainly obey the laws of thermodynamics. Now, start with the concept of biological competition. What are the different populations competing for? Once you figure this out, the math for this process becomes obvious.

Oh, you mean reproductive differential.Let's test your knowledge. How do you think the fittest are determined? What is the one overriding factor that controls all of population genetics and, thus, all of evolution?And then how do your concerns with thermodynamics disrupt this set of processes?

Kleinman:

---

You should care about what Darwin said because he was correct.

AZPaul3:

---

In a lot of ways, yes, but he was not complete. The modern synthesis includes all of Darwin (modified) along with Mendel, evo-devo, population genetics and ++.
​
No one is saying Darwin was wrong as far as his more general observations go. But if you're going to discuss evolution you need to understand more than a few passages of Darwin.
​

---

---

Mendel did the math for his observations, Darwin did not do the math for his observations. And you don't understand either the physics or math of Darwin's observations. If you learn how to do this physics and math, then you can try to include Mendel's observations or any other evolutionary process you can imagine.

Kleinman:

---

Of course, if you think that modern synthesis explains this, post this explanation, you won't.

AZPaul3:

---

You really do not understand the subject.

---

---

I can explain the physics and math of Darwinian evolution and correlate this explanation to biological evolutionary experiments to predict the behavior of these experiments. You can't.