Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Truth About Evolution and Religion
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 376 of 419 (562017)
05-25-2010 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by bluegenes
05-25-2010 6:15 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
bluegenes writes:
Actually, the whole damned thread's confusing, because it's hard to figure what its author is actually trying to say!
I agree completely. I asked him god knows how many question to get a clearer view of his argument, but he either doesn't react at all, or answers with more of his mumbo jumbo. And then he says he finds it hard to believe I don't understand what he is saying!
Why the author of the O.P. rambles on about this, and how he connects it to his comments on his god is a mystery.
Indeed.
Well, Mr. Roemer, it seems I am certainly not the only one who doesn't understand what you are trying to do here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by bluegenes, posted 05-25-2010 6:15 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 377 of 419 (562018)
05-25-2010 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Coyote
05-24-2010 9:55 PM


Re: Quote mining
And why is it that so many are deliberate attempts, on someone's part, to deceive the reader?
Maybe it is that, instead of promoting moral behaviour as religious types so loudly and persistently claim, religion actually impairs morality.
We do constantly see supporting examples of that in these forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Coyote, posted 05-24-2010 9:55 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 378 of 419 (562022)
05-25-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 4:19 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
Even with the filtering, there is no explanation for the increase in the complexity of life. The relevance of this is that you are being deceived by atheistic humanists. Atheistic humanists are people who think they are more rational and enlightened than those who believe in God.
But scientists of all religious persuasions support the theory of evolution, not just atheists.
One of the reasons to believe in God is the big bang.
Curiously enough, the creationists who deny the big bang tell me that it's an atheist humanist deception. Perhaps you could fight it out amongst yourselves.
There is more than speculation about the cause of evolution ...
It's explained by the theory of evolution. I may have mentioned it a few times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 4:19 AM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 9:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
fizz57102
Junior Member (Idle past 4006 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-24-2010


Message 379 of 419 (562024)
05-25-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Huntard
05-25-2010 5:42 AM


Re: Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Nope, it's a typo. Mea culpa and all that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Huntard, posted 05-25-2010 5:42 AM Huntard has not replied

  
dkroemer
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 125
From: Brooklyn, New York
Joined: 05-15-2010


Message 380 of 419 (562028)
05-25-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Dr Adequate
05-25-2010 8:36 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2010 8:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Huntard, posted 05-25-2010 10:23 AM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 384 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2010 11:06 AM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 385 by Woodsy, posted 05-25-2010 11:16 AM dkroemer has replied
 Message 393 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2010 5:02 PM dkroemer has not replied

  
dkroemer
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 125
From: Brooklyn, New York
Joined: 05-15-2010


Message 381 of 419 (562032)
05-25-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Huntard
05-25-2010 4:48 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
This is a quote from Kenneth Miller. He is disagreeing with Behe about intelligent design, not about evolution and biology:
"In Behe’s view, these are examples of nothing more than a kind of trench warfare in which the two species have progressively disabled or broken parts of themselves in order to survive. Nothing genuinely new, novel, or complex has resulted from this struggle, and we shouldn’t expect otherwise. The reason, according to Behe, is that the sorts of changes we see in this well-studied interaction represent the limit, the edge of what evolution can accomplish. They can go this far and no further. A line in the sand is drawn, and the other side of that line is intelligent design.
How does Behe know where to draw that line?" (p. 67, The Battle for America's Soul)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Huntard, posted 05-25-2010 4:48 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Huntard, posted 05-25-2010 9:56 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 382 of 419 (562034)
05-25-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 9:42 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
dkroemer writes:
This is a quote from Kenneth Miller. He is disagreeing with Behe about intelligent design, not about evolution and biology:
ID is a disagreement about biology.
Kenneth Miller will absolutely agree about what explains the complexity of life. That would be the theory of evolution.
I have absolutely no idea why you pulled out this quote about Behe, as Kenneth Miller's disagreement with Behe is not something I eluded to. Kenneth Miller will tell you that the theory of evolution is the explanation for the complexity of life, as will almost all other biologists, religious or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 9:42 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 383 of 419 (562035)
05-25-2010 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 9:36 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
dkroemer writes:
So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms.
Whatever gave you that bizarre idea? Litterally nothing Dr. Adequate said implies that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 9:36 AM dkroemer has not replied

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


(2)
Message 384 of 419 (562046)
05-25-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 9:36 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
Straggler writes:
I have a deck of cards. I have just arranged them into suits and number order.
Have I increased the order of the deck of cards? Have I violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
dkroemer writes:
Yes, you increased the knowledge of the location of the cards.
So as far as you are concerned I violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics by simply sorting cards into an ordered pile.
Can you explain how I was able to defy this fundamental law of nature so simply and easily? Am I special or can anyone defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics if they so choose?
dkroemer writes:
So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms.
Where do you get that from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 9:36 AM dkroemer has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


(1)
Message 385 of 419 (562047)
05-25-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 9:36 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms.
No such admission was made.
If you try really, really hard, you might be able to post something truthful. That would be a refreshing change!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 9:36 AM dkroemer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 12:15 PM Woodsy has replied

  
dkroemer
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 125
From: Brooklyn, New York
Joined: 05-15-2010


Message 386 of 419 (562054)
05-25-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Woodsy
05-25-2010 11:16 AM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
There seems to be some confusion about terminology. I'v been reading about evolution since 1970s and have had book reviews published about evolution. I must admit, however, that I have only a layman's understanding of evolution. The research that is currently being done is beyond me, so I can only tell you what I mean by the words:
Evolution is the object of study of evolutionary biology.
Common descent is also called macroevolution and refers to the 20th century observation that all life evolved from a single bacterium or many bacteria over a period of 3.5 billion years.
Adaptation refers to the ancient observation that species adapt to their environment.
Theory of evolution is an out-of-date term that was relevant in the 19th and early 20th century.
Orthogenesis is the discredited theory that living organisms have an interior drive to evolve into bigger and more complex organisms.
Natural selection includes random mutations, survival of the fittest, etc.
Facilitated variation is an improvement over natural selection and is considered a refutation of intelligent design. Intelligent design does not deserve a definition because it is not science. It refutes intelligent design because it helps explain adaptation. Since there is no hard and fast line to be drawn between and common descent and adaptation, it can also be regarded as an explanation for common descent. Biologists don't say natural selection and/or facilitated variation explains common descent because it would make them look like they don't understand how complex life is.
Second law of thermodynamics states that a system of particles tends towards a state of greater disorder. The free expansion of a gas is an example. It is based on probability theory and statistical mechanics. We can assume that common descent does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Woodsy, posted 05-25-2010 11:16 AM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2010 12:26 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 388 by Huntard, posted 05-25-2010 12:56 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 389 by bluegenes, posted 05-25-2010 1:24 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 390 by Woodsy, posted 05-25-2010 1:25 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 391 by misha, posted 05-25-2010 2:54 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 392 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2010 4:59 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 394 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-25-2010 5:26 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 395 by Parasomnium, posted 05-25-2010 5:50 PM dkroemer has not replied
 Message 404 by Iblis, posted 05-25-2010 7:51 PM dkroemer has not replied

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


(3)
Message 387 of 419 (562055)
05-25-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 12:15 PM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
dkroemer writes:
Second law of thermodynamics states that a system of particles tends towards a state of greater disorder.
dkroemer writes:
However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics.
When I placed my deck of cards in order did I defy the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
When a baby develops from a zygote to an embryo and then on to a fully formed and functioning baby is the 2nd law of thermodynamics being violated?
Maybe you don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 12:15 PM dkroemer has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 388 of 419 (562060)
05-25-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 12:15 PM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
dkroemer writes:
Evolution is the object of study of evolutionary biology.
Yes. It is also the change over time in populations.
Common descent is also called macroevolution and refers to the 20th century observation that all life evolved from a single bacterium or many bacteria over a period of 3.5 billion years.
It's not called macro-evolution. That would be speciation. Also, Darwin already noticed this trend, making common descent way older than just the 20th century.
Adaptation refers to the ancient observation that species adapt to their environment.
I don;t know how ancient it is, but the rest seems accurate.
Theory of evolution is an out-of-date term that was relevant in the 19th and early 20th century.
It's not out of date, in fact it's still the name of the theory that explains evolution. Just like "gravitational theory" is still the theory that explains gravity.
Orthogenesis is the discredited theory that living organisms have an interior drive to evolve into bigger and more complex organisms.
Yes, something like that.
Natural selection includes random mutations, survival of the fittest, etc.
Does not include random mutations, survival of the fittest is a consequence of natural selection. I don't know what you meant with your etc. here, so no comment on that. Natural selection is the pressure the environment puts on individuals. Those individuals who have genes (that are a result of random mutation) that give them traits that make them handle those pressures better, and reproduce better, will spread those genes and traits through the population, until eventually almost or all members of the population have those same genses and traits.
Facilitated variation is an improvement over natural selection and is considered a refutation of intelligent design.
Intelligent design needs no improvement to natural selection to show that it's bullcrap. Specifically, Facilitated variation show irreducible complexity (one thing put forward by ID people) to be incorrect very effectively.
Intelligent design does not deserve a definition because it is not science.
Quite correct.
Since there is no hard and fast line to be drawn between and common descent and adaptation, it can also be regarded as an explanation for common descent.
It's a very incomplete explanation then.
Biologists don't say natural selection and/or facilitated variation explains common descent because it would make them look like they don't understand how complex life is.
No. they don't say that because the theory of evolution explains complexity. Why would they something explains complexity, when they know something else does.
Second law of thermodynamics states that a system of particles tends towards a state of greater disorder.
Well no, that's just how you apply t here. Also note that this is only the case in a closed system, in an open system (Earth) this is not the case.
The free expansion of a gas is an example.
No, the heat lost during that expansion is an example.
It is based on probability theory and statistical mechanics.
No it isn't. It is based upon observations made concerning heatflow.
We can assume that common descent does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
Of course not, so far as we know, nothing does, that's why it's called a law.
However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics.
No they aren't. Saying or writing something does not violate the second law. Also, they are wrong, because they should say tat the theory of evolution explains common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 12:15 PM dkroemer has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 389 of 419 (562062)
05-25-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 12:15 PM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
dkroemer writes:
Facilitated variation is an improvement over natural selection....
dk writes:
However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics.
Do you understand what I'm saying when I point out that what Kirschner and Gerhart describe as "facilitated variation" is itself a product of random variation and natural selection? It is put forward by them to explain the phenomenon of relatively rapid (in geological time) diversification and increases in complexity in organisms in recent evolution (the last 500 million years, basically).
It has been selected for itself because of its obvious advantages in adaption.
It is put forward as an explanation of the "variation" part of Darwins theory. They describe it as "Resolving Darwin's Dillemma" because Darwin had no way of knowing how the variation that he observed was produced. (He didn't even know about "genes" anyway).
People who explain the diversity of life around us, speciation, and therefore common descent as happening under the broad umbrella description of "variation and natural selection" are not "violating the 2nd LoT". That's pretty much what it actually comes down to, and the "facilitated variation" or "evolved adaptability" that you've latched on to is part of the process.
So, what's your problem, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 12:15 PM dkroemer has not replied

  
Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 390 of 419 (562063)
05-25-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by dkroemer
05-25-2010 12:15 PM


Re: misunderstanding or misrepresentation?
There seems to be some confusion about terminology. I'v been reading about evolution since 1970s and have had book reviews published about evolution. I must admit, however, that I have only a layman's understanding of evolution. The research that is currently being done is beyond me, so I can only tell you what I mean by the words:
I thought you could post something accurate if you really tried.
Unfortunately, a good deal of your post is incorrect, disingenuous, or trivial. Please see Huntard's post for details.
I am puzzled that you see fit to make authoritative-sounding pronouncements about things that you yourself admit that you understand only to a limited extent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by dkroemer, posted 05-25-2010 12:15 PM dkroemer 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