Theory of Evolution Vs. Entropy

It's a law of THERMOdynamics. THERMO

THERMO

THERMO

It has to do with energy. DNA can become mutated all because of energy

>>8686296
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed; hence it does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics

File: It-Evolved-Sm.jpg (75KB, 918x369px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 918x369px

>>8686306
>what is ad hoc?
>what is a "just so" story?

>>8686314
kys. How about you come up with an even better theory

>>8686316
Already did since the dawn of time (around 6,000 years ago), but you didn't listen.
http://wp.evidentcreation.com

>>8686316

Just hopping into this thread. You sound like you're 12.

>>8686304
Life dies because of THERMO dynamics. Yet it 'goes against' that by creating more life perpetually from itself, because of an open system. (more THERMO.)

The second part of what you said though, that's a reply that actually wasn't a waste of your time like typing thermo four times unnecessarily.

So THERMO adds energy, energy then mutates because of that energy, evolution happens.

Gotcha, so your answer is 'yes' to the question in the op. "Yes, because of energy causing mutation." You could have said.

I would cut down on the coffee, perhaps only fill your THERMO to half from now on.

>>8686296
I though about this all night, in the morning the answer dawned on me.

>>8686304
Thermodynamics don't matter because because energy being added to something does not evolution make. For example, abiogenesis is still a problem, even with enough energy for it to happen.

Sure, mutations might exist, but how did anything come to be 'alive' in the first place? There is literally no evidence that non-life can become life and for evolution to be true it had to happen.

On the other hand there is a ton of evidence that life can never come from non-life.

There is also precious little evidence that mutations can do anything beneficial, and what little examples we have, I can really only think of one or two and they all involve a loss of information.

Like the plastic digesting enzyme, gained the ability by losing a structure, or the organisms that gain a resistance to a disease by losing a part of their system.

>>8686329

Sun jokes, I see. I see.

>>8686306
op didn't ask 'does the theory of evolution contradict 2nd law' so you're answering your own question, not the op.

>>8686362
My bad. It's quite late where I live

>>8686366
s'all good

>>8686314
Man, if only he knew how much fucking work biology is.

File: 1487482507952.jpg (50KB, 813x742px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 813x742px

here's one for you

how did internal gestation evolve? why not just lay eggs?

>>8686314
>>8686318
Evolution is both fact and theory. However, it's important to understand the distinction between theory and hypothesis -- a theory is based on observable phenomena and empirical evidence that provide the best possible understanding a system. Scientific theories are the most reliable and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It's a fact because we know that evolution (change over time) occurs on the micro scale. We've been able to observe bacteria and other microscopic organisms evolve, even insects. As for Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution, there are disputes and conjecture regarding certain things, but carbon dating and gene mapping have given us a more reliable picture of the time frame... and it's not 6,000 years.

Now, creationism is a H Y P O T H E S I S, and it's a completely unfounded, half-assed, superficial one that's based on nothing but wishful thinking.

>>8686296
Evolution creates organisms that are best fit for their environment. So it seems to create more order over time rather than chaos. You could argue this is a more complicated form of chaos though.

>>8686296
This is a common misconception of entropy.
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/entropy_isnot_disorder.html

>>8686401
sounds like you're just redefining chaos to mean complex order. that doesn't make sense.

>>8686407
Not anon, but entropy is not chaos. See: >>8686405

>>8686405
that's true entropy doesn't refute evolution, I don't think. evolution having no mechanism of action that's actually proven does tho, I think. mutations don't work and natural selection doesn't create, if they did there would be never-ending examples of it by now

>>8686394
on the contrary, all micro-evolution (read, adaptation) involves a selection of traits and loss of information, therefore it evidentially points to no such thing as macro evolution which is what people are really talking about when they say evolution.

>>8686410
>entropy doesn't refute evolution
... I never said it did.

Honestly, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>8686412
Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation

>>8686413
sorry i mixed you up with the person who said the same thing as you

>>8686416
and a loss of information though, that's the key part. variation through mutation is never a gaining of traits, its a selection based on fitness of the expressed genes but nothing new is added

File: Aquaticats.jpg (148KB, 556x1376px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 556x1376px

>>8686394
>carbon dating and gene mapping
You assume these are correct because you have been trained to do so.

What was the starting amount of C-14? We don't know, we weren't there. Most of it should be gone by now, considering the earth's supposed old age.

When did we see creatures that are supposedly related to one another (cats and frogs) diverge into entirely different creatures? We don't know, we weren't there. All that has been observed is variation within kinds.

What is creationism's foundation? Written historical records made by reliable people.

So is a guess>fact now? That's what it looks like to me. Evolution all show and no tell.

>>8686420
Take your inane Christfaggotry somewhere else, dumbfuck

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/

>>8686413
also just for the record there's no reason to be angry about it do you swear in peoples faces when they misunderstand you in real life?

What is the contradiction between entropy and evolution? I'm not seeing it.

File: BM-DarwinDodos.jpg (358KB, 908x649px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 908x649px

>>8686423
>appeal to ridicule
>using a heavily biased source
I thought you were supposed to be professional when dicussing such a subject. What's the matter? Someone called you out on your bullshit?

>>8686423
settle down poncho, i was just at that article and it doesn't refute micro-evolution always being a loss of information. it's genetic selection. you were saying that micro evolution proved macro evolution. I showed you plainly that it has never shown a gain of information (adaptation/micro evolution never has) then you get mad and called me names. not cool.

micro evolution never shows a gain of information, therefore it can't be used to prove macro - those types of mutations simply don't cut it, you have to look elsewhere at different kinds of mutations that are evidential, at least I think so.

>>8686422
all tell and no show you mean, because its all talk but yah, keep on those are all great points

>>8686425
The apparent contradiction. In the OP I didn't say there was one, only that it appeared that way. Other people have explained it here but the apparent contradiction can be summed up with everything degrades with time.

In the OP I mentioned an open system, because we have an open, and not closed system, which allows for things to continue on much longer without complete entropy. Life is another thing that seems to contradict entropy in a sense, because we have children etc. It's a very long holding pattern.

In the open system, we gain more energy and so the patterns can hold for a long amount of time, and in some ways, seem to defy against entropy.

>>8686422
>What is creationism's foundation? Written historical records made by reliable people.
Reliable people? You mean the same people who wrote about talking shrubbery and miracles and all the other supernatural nonsense? You're telling me you favor """historical accounts""" because... words.

>>8686424
Go fuck yourself

>>8686428
>appeal to ridicule
Stop inspiring it

>heavily biased source
Oh, but the bible totally isn't, right?

>>8686430
>you were saying that micro evolution proved macro evolution.
That's not what I was saying at all. I'm saying that microevolution is the reason why it's fact. Macro would be theory.

And if you don't think that article provides examples of things that refute the notion that some mutation isn't gained info, then either you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or you're just being willfully ignorant.

File: 20010924-2.gif (27KB, 290x306px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 290x306px

>>8686433
I mean "show" as in media.

>>8686425
entropy probably won't contradict evolution but mutations not working as a mechanism will, read some of the other posts in here even though its off topic they are more interesting

Thermodynamics, like all theories, is just a simplified approximation of the what's really happening in nature. What plays the role of entropy on a large scale and what you pick to be your system (and if it is a closed system) is not trivial.

In any case, on a philosophical level, I consider that human beings increase entropy by our biological struggle to reproduce and conquer. Bu this is more philosophy than science. You should probably not try to apply thermodynamics to biology or sociology, the real (or ratter more precise) equations governing phenomena in these fields are pretty much unknown for now.

>>8686443
>Reliable people? You mean the same people who wrote about talking shrubbery and miracles and all the other supernatural nonsense? You're telling me you favor """historical accounts""" because... words.

he/she (probably he) is right, the books in the bible are solid. why would the jews take forever describe who begat who for twenty pages if they were writing fiction. they were obviously recording things down. even if that's not the best argument, the bible is full of historically verified stuff, people, events, and its worth reading for pretty much anyone, even an unbeliever, and if interested, worth studying.

>>8686443
"Go f*** yourself" I'll take that as a no, you don't swear in people's faces when they simply misunderstand you in real life. And the fact that I pointed that out, made you mad. Listen, you can't keep acting like this when you become an adult. I mean, I'm getting a sort of smile out of it, but it's still not good for you man.

>>8686450
>the bible is full of historically verified stuff, people, events
No... it's really not. Tell me what, exactly, has been historically verified.

I'm not saying the Bible is devoid of historical facts, but that certainly doesn't bolster your fallacious argument that this somehow lends credibility to the myth.

>>8686452
Maybe I was wrong. You probably fuck yourself too often and need to get fucked by someone else.

But as long as it's within the bounds of a unity that's ordained by God, am I right?

>>8686453
yah, its never good to argue that the bible is not full of historically verified stuff, so I can see why you backtracked in your second sentence, but to me and lots of people, that does lend credibility to the other things that are said in the exact same books.

so if the exact same book (note I say that because the bible is a collection of books, not a single book) contains accurate records of everything else inside of it, and a few things I'm unsure of, it's much more likely that this record is a reliable source

so even something as mundane as all the begats being in there, means this person was serious about recording something real, there is no indication they switched between recording reality and fantasy, and no fantasy would bother recording 20 pages of begats with no information worthy of any interest.

it seems the point of the begats was to simply record the truth and maybe for people living in that generation to check the record being reported against other records, who knows really, but it doesn't point to the author writing a myth

but like I said, probably not the greatest example, but i know you'll understand what I mean

>>8686452
>>8686457
Can you not fight on the thread?

>>8686462
>so I can see why you backtracked in your second sentence,
>backtracked
When you say "it's full of", this is an ambiguous statement because "full of" is relative. When I think of something that's "full", I think of something that is complete or nearly complete. And in now way is the bible even close to being almost completely historically verified; thus, "no... it's really not".

>but to me and lots of people, that does lend credibility to the other things that are said in the exact same books.
Logic literally doesn't get much more faulty than this statement.

>contains accurate records of everything else inside of it, and a few things I'm unsure of, it's much more likely that this record is a reliable source
Hold on, I'm currently writing a book for you. It contains verifiable information, and proof that I'm the real son of God. It's gonna blow your mind.

I'm genuinely curious: Age/location?

>>8686468
>When you say "it's full of"[...] I think of something that is complete or nearly complete. And in now way is the bible even close to being almost completely historically verified [.]

This is non sequiter just because something hasn't been entirely verified doesn't mean it doesn't contain facts, it only follows that not all of them are verified.

>Logic literally doesn't get much more faulty than this statement

How so? We use historical sources to find things out about history all of the time. It's accepted practice.

>Hold on, I'm currently writing a book for you. It contains verifiable information, and proof that I'm the real son of God.

Implying that this is how the books containing the accounts of Jesus were written is not a very good argument. If you can prove that they were written in this manner, than that'd be much better.

>I'm genuinely curious: Age/location?

Answer me this first, how old do you think I am? Also, location? Never on 4chan. Why do you ask?


When you say "it's full of", this is an ambiguous statement because "full of" is relative. When I think of something that's "full", I think of something that is complete or nearly complete. And in now way is the bible even close to being almost completely historically verified; thus, "no... it's really not".

>>8686468
Sorry accidentally posted your full quote at the bottom of the last post, that was just a mistake.

>>8686483
>This is non sequiter just because something hasn't been entirely verified doesn't mean it doesn't contain facts, it only follows that not all of them are verified.
You misunderstood my statement... almost completely. My point is that it's illogical to believe supernatural claims in a text simply because it also contains historically accurate info (btw, I'm still waiting on those examples of all the things that have been verified). And I already acknowledged that it's not devoid of facts.

>how so?
First of all, there isn't much that's been verified, and I think you know it. And typically, a source is considered to be accurate when there are multiple sources that back it up, along with tangible evidence. It's a mistake to put too much faith in any subjective, personal accounts of history, and that goes for any historical record.

>Implying that this is how the books containing the accounts of Jesus were written is not a very good argument.
Again, missing the point. The fact is, they're just words... nothing more. And there's nothing even remotely resembling evidence to lead any rational person to believe that it was inspired by a deity.

>how old do you think I am? Also, location?
For your sake, I hope you haven't graduated middle school. But honestly, my guess would be 16/somewhere in South America.

>>8686306
Give me the scientific study proving apes can mutate into humans.

Blacked.com aftermath videos don't count.

>>8686502
They didn't. Jesus Christ, are you even trying?

>>8686296
The process that creates life also caused a net increase of Entropy in the larger system.

>>8686296
>Does the theory of evolution only appear to contradict the second law of thermal dynamics because of an open system?

It doesn't appear to contradict it, at all. Even if you treated "Earth+Sun" as a single closed system, it doesn't come close to violating thermodynamics. The only possible reason someone would claim it does, is because they don't understand ANYTHING about thermodynamics (or evolution, obviously, but thermodynamics is the more fundamental ignorance).

>>8686296
The sun

/thread

>>8686410
>mutations don't work

Because....? You say so?

>and natural selection doesn't create

What do you mean by "create"? Nothing "creates" in the ex nihilo sense, but natural selection does "create" in the "making a chair from some wood" sense.

>>8686422
>You assume these are correct because you have been trained to do so.

Why ould they be wrong? Literally the only reason to reject either is because they prove the Earth is more than six thousand years old. Not suggest, mind. PROVE. So either God almighty is intentionally putting solid, irrefutable proof in place to trick people into Hell, or the Bible contains passages that can't be interpreted literally. For some reason, you prefer the idea of a cosmic sadist who endows men with intelligence, then burns them in Hell forever for exercising it.

File: god is good-ish.png (1MB, 1063x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1063x1536px

>>8686428
>>appeal to ridicule

You literally deserve nothing else.You have presented ZERO evidence or even reasons to agree with your stupid ideas. Trying to engage with you on any level but ridicule would be a waste of time.

>>8686441
>Other people have explained it here but the apparent contradiction can be summed up with everything degrades with time.

But how is this a contradiction? No-one is claiming life will evolve FOREVER, eventually the sun will burn out and everything will die.

>>8686296
We eat material and turn it into heat and homogeneous brown paste. Then we die and become dirt, we are practically entropy machines.

>>8686450
>the bible is full of historically verified stuff

Really? Because no, it isn't. Even the stuff that isn't obviously fairy tales is generally provably false, such as the entirety of Exodus (Israeli archaeologists have spent 70 years looking for evidence of the forty years of wanderings, and found exactly nothing) or the "X begat Y" genealogies, that would seem solid, turn out to have multiple conflicting versions and can be seen as political documents reflecting the standing of the various tribes in relation to one another, and not as accurate accounts of real familial history.

Y'all trolls postin in a nigga thread.

>>8686555

Poe's Law always applies to Christians, the "serious" ones believe stuff every bit as moronic as the trolls claim to.

>>8686500
>I'm still waiting on those examples of all the things that have been verified

I didn't bother because you backtracked. I thought you realized the answer was only an endless amount of googles away. Here I'll do just one for you and that's being nice cause I know you can do this yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources Took me two seconds and that's just a single page. I'm sure you could do that search all day.

Since I have to go to bed I'll just say this answers your second thingy too, the how so thing cause you mentioned again that you think there isn't much verified. Not true, but its okay I know if you really wanted to know you'll google.

>Again, missing the point. The fact is, they're just words

That's just an assertion you're making. Everything Einstein ever wrote is 'just words' too, but they contain truth and value.

You haven't made an argument in that sentence to prove that the words in the gospels are true, untrue, or anything in between. I can say we're using 'just words' too, but that wouldn't be a fair argument because we both have intention, experience, etc. behind our words. I'd never apply that to you.

>For your sake, I hope you haven't graduated middle school. But honestly, my guess would be 16/somewhere in South America.

South America? That's an interesting guess, and I wonder why you'd think that. I don't know much about South America so it's sort of interesting I wonder what you're basing that on.

My guess is that I'm at least your age, if not older, just based on how we both speak, our vocabulary, coherence, and understanding of the subject at hand. I think you guessed that too, personally. I think you were hoping I was younger so that you could be over me in some way, and use ageism to make yourself feel better. I don't judge you for it, I think we all do silly stuff like that sometimes. I know I do.

>>8686535
>Because....? You say so?

Answered before you replied. There would be endless examples of it if it were true. There aren't. It would be prolific.

>What do you mean by "create"?

It doesn't add new information. Natural selection selects from what is already there. It can't cause an animal to go from an amoeba and then over thousands of years, into a land animal. For that there would have to be additional information. Natural selection by itself doesn't do that. That's why evolution tries to rely on mutation (coupled with nat. select).

>>8686569
>There would be endless examples of it if it were true.

Are you denying the diversity of lifeforms?

>It doesn't add new information.

That's were our friend mutation comes in.But of course you already rejected mutation, because....? Presumably, because it completely destroys your case, whatsoever.

>>8686296
This isn't how entropy works

>>8686544
Apparent. Did you read the reply? Apparent implies an incomplete view, the op asked for clarification on an apparent contradiction. Go back and read the thing you're replying to. I'm just repeating myself.

Your point is fine, but your question at the beginning is unnecessary within the context, it was already said that the op didn't say that there was one.

>>8686545
no argument there, the argument is about the gaining complexity/information with each generation

>>8686579

You'd have to be a literal retard to make this mistake, tho. It's not "apparent" if only the mentally disabled think it.

>>8686567
>I'm sure you could do that search all day.
Yeah, and I'd come up with a very tiny fraction of substantial historicity. Even most Biblical scholars would agree.

>Everything Einstein ever wrote is 'just words' too, but they contain truth and value.
Any truth and value that we've gleaned from Einstein has been because of logic and empirical analysis.

>You haven't made an argument in that sentence to prove that the words in the gospels are true, untrue, or anything in between.
I'd say the bulk of the burden of proof lies on the claimant when the claims are mostly unfounded. There are plenty of things that I can't disprove with 100% certainty, and so I have to settle on the information at hand. The bottom line is that there's no good reason I should believe any supernatural claim.

>I wonder why you'd think that
Oh, i dunno. Christianity is pervasive and the education system sucks ass.

>>8686580

Every unit of increased complexity requires 100+ units of DECREASED complexity. Complexity does not increase over each generation, most of it is lost and what remains is merely moved from one place / system to another.

>>8686548
I think you can believe that up to a certain point, unless you really go deep studying the evidence. For every scholar who says there is no evidence for 'blah' there are plenty who say there is. It's a very deep study. And certainly there are many things verifiable in the bible from extra-biblical sources. It's something that is no longer as difficult to study or search out thanks to the internet and access to sources.

Now whether or not you believe those sources can be more difficult maybe than if you study in a more direct way, or perhaps even the traditional way, but it's still valuable, I would think.

>>8686589

If you were to use the Bible as your primary source, you wouldn't know anything about history. Yes, you can line up certain figures mentioned in the Bible with historical figures, but you can't work the other way and infer historical figures from Biblical evidence, because when you do, you find bupkis.

> it's still valuable, I would think.

As an historical artefact, sure, it's fascinating. As a source of history? Yeah, no. It's about as historically accurate as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

>>8686571
re you denying the diversity of lifeforms?

That is circular reasoning. Diversity of lifeforms only proves evolution if evolution is assumed to be true.

It doesn't prove that diversity of lifeforms is caused by evolution through mutation.

Mutation has flimsy to no evidence backing the claim that it can cause evolution beyond limited loss of information adaptations. Which aren't really evolution, as nothing is gained, only selected from what already is available.

For evolution to take place something has to be gained. We had to have gone from simple to complex, gaining functions and parts.

Mutation would definitely destroy my case if that were proven, and I would then believe in evolution. Having looked into it however, it doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm no flat-earther, if you showed me a picture of the globe from space I'd believe you. That's solid evidence. If you show me evidence of mutation causing an addition of function and information, not through a loss of something that already existed in the organism or its genes, that'd be enough for me.

We've been looking for it forever and ever time a case seems to prove macro evolution it turns out to be a destruction or a loss of information, or a repeat of pre-existing information that could never add benefit, function, or become a new 'part' to the organism.

I used to believe in evolution but now I find it empty. It seems really good on the surface. Lots of animals are very alike, we share things in common, and that's attractive and appealing towards the argument for evolution but it turns out after looking deeper, at least to me, to only be skin deep.

I now believe a common creator really just as good of an explanation, and seems to have more, if different in nature, evidence for it than evolution with mutations etc.

>>8686606
No, you're right, God probably formed everything with his big ass hands.

Most of these claims have already been addressed in this thread, and either debunked or corrected in sources that are easy to google. Take your intellectual dishonesty somewhere else.

>>8686606
>That is circular reasoning. Diversity of lifeforms only proves evolution if evolution is assumed to be true.

You claim that were evolution by natural selection to be true, there would be countless examples of it. These examples are called, "the diversity of lifeforms".

>Mutation has flimsy to no evidence backing the claim that it can cause evolution beyond limited loss of information adaptations. Which aren't really evolution, as nothing is gained, only selected from what already is available.

Firstly, you're lying about what evolution is. I won't say "mistaken", because I know for a fact that you're a liar, because you're a Christian. But setting that aside, mutation does NOT only lead to loss of information, reduplication errors are in fact extremely common. So even by your own deceitful standards, you're wrong.

>Mutation would definitely destroy my case if that were proven, and I would then believe in evolution.

You can go to a lab and literally observe it with your own eyes. But of course you know this and are simply lying again, like the good Christian you are.

>>8686296
Assuming you even have the necessary background to understand the answer I'm about to give (you don't) evolution doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics at all, in any way.

The second law states that the total entropy of a closed (isolated) system always increases over time. However, biological organisms are not closed systems and are thus able to maintain low entropy by taking in matter with low entropy (food) and excreting matter with high entropy (shit). That's all there is to it. Evolution, the gradual change in a species caused by different genes conferring higher or lower survival rates to different individuals, doesn't have anything to do with thermodynamics.

>>8686412
>>8686420
>>8686430
>>8686606
That doesn't explain antibacterial resistances.
>Inb4 antibiotic resistance comes from something that was targeted being lost when antibiotics target essential processes

Referring to a loss of information where genetic code is concerned is retarded anyway.
Is a gene duplication event a gain of information?
Is it a gain of information when the duplicate genes end up diverging into different functions?
Is it a gain of information when 1 changed Base turns an entire segment into a functional gene?

>>8686422
>Starting amount of C-14
>When what matters is the ratio of decayed to undecayed
>What are half-lives?
>Carbon dating isn't even the only dating method

>>8686502
Your parents gave birth to you.
Congratulations!
You've just learned that humans are apes and that your statement was pointless. Use a different question.

>>8686296
No. Use google next time

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

File: Corgi.jpg (146KB, 711x600px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 711x600px

>>8686391
>how did internal gestation evolve
by the intermediate of ovoviviparity, you chucklehead
and while laying eggs is a viable strategy, it also means you have to brood your eggs if you're any kind of K selector. and this is very difficult to do in certain environments, such as pelagic niches. laying eggs means you're constrained by WHERE you can successfully brood them, which is why amphibians aren't that widespread in terrestrial ecosystems.

File: Evolution.jpg (154KB, 875x402px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 875x402px

I know this is b8 but fuckit

>>8686422
>Most of it should be gone by now, considering the earth's supposed old age.
>not knowing that 14C is continually generated by the impact of cosmic rays on the atmosphere
>not knowing that this has been observed experimentally
ISHYGDDT

>When did we see creatures that are supposedly related to one another (cats and frogs) diverge into entirely different creatures? We don't know, we weren't there.
I know because I WAS there. Prove me wrong fgt.

File: nice meme.gif (3MB, 420x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 420x300px

>>8686450
>why would J.R.R. Tolkien take forever describe who begat who for twenty pages if he was writing fiction
Silmarillion confirmed for historical document! I AM ANGRY, ANGRY ABOUT ELVES!

File: abaj.png (46KB, 229x301px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 229x301px

>>8686569
>an animal to go from an amoeba and then over thousands of years, into a land animal
>thousands of years
...how old do you believe the Earth is?

>>8687215
>>8686569

The irony is that the rate of species change Creationists posit since the time of Noah is many, many orders of magnitude greater than anything a scientist would consider possible. So not only do Creotards rely on evolution for their argument, they rely on an evolution that works far more quickly than the natural selection they ridicule.

File: Natural-Selection-BCBC-ws.jpg (55KB, 350x254px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 350x254px

http://wp.evidentcreation.com

>>8686296
Up until WW2 physicists non-ironically posited a negentropic natural force to explain life. Information theory proved it wasn't necessary because intelligent systems are powered by entropy from the Sun. Your question is 70 years old.

>>8686296
energy from the sun brainlet

>>8686613
Your aggression is entirely unnecessary. Calling someone a liar, who never showed you that level of disrespect, just because they disagree with you or worse in this case, doing it just because they might be a Christian (a blanket statement, which is bigotry), hurts your chances that someone will really wanting to listen to what you have to say. Are you the same guy who was calling people names earlier?

Calling people names is a bad debate tactic and it is intellectually lazy. The only people who are impressed by that are people who are already on your side of the argument and 'rooting for the home team.'

To anyone who is really interested in the question, it turns them away. There are plenty of places on the internet to state your point of view among other people who are the same view, and have yourself patted on the back. Why not go there instead if this is how you talk to others.

>>8686613

Duriing this reply you're conflating micro-evolution with macro evolution.

Micro evolutionary mutations cannot prove macro evolutionary models, because they have not shown to add information. Micro evolution has never proved anything but an adaptation due to a loss of information, as selected by the environment through genetic fitness.

So for example let's say there is a world where everyone over 6 feet tall gets murdered by man eating eagles. Within a few generations nature will 'select' for shorter people. Nothing is added, nothing is gained, no macro-evolution could ever take place through this process.

Darwin's finches are the same, and the perfect examples. Varying beaks etc. help them adapt to their environment, they are selected traits. We also perform micro evolution by breeding cats and dogs. We can get very tiny dogs. Fluffy dogs. Dogs with better noses. But we're selecting from the gene pool of dogs, and this has never been shown to add information, which would be necessary for macro evolution to be true.

>>8687550

I call you a liar because you're a liar. Don't like it? Stop lying then. As for "respect", you aren't worthy of any. Why? Because you're a liar.

>>8687205
Your Evolution.jpg can easily be debunked as an imperfect analogy.

If your paragraph were a single animal, then that animal has the ability to express blue, or red, and therefor expresses a gradient among its generations. It could not express green or any other color, because that information is not available in the paragraph, it cannot be selected for (because it isn't there) and it cannot be 'added' because that would be a gain of information, which we know never happens during micro-evolution.

Micro-evolution cannot cause macro evolution.

Another way of thinking about it, is pretend the animal was ONLY blue, then your paragraph would also be faulty, because you introduced red into the gene pool, when red never existed in the blue creature in the first place. That's an addition of information, and again, micro evolution has never shown an increase in information, only a selection of pre-existing information in the organisms genes.

>>8687208
I actually was even going to say 'except Lord of the Rings' as a joke when I brought it up because all the hobbit lineages but then decided not to insult your intelligence because I'm sure you would recognize that when Tolkien included lineages in books like LOTR it was inspired by, the Bible.

No one who really truly wants to know the truth is going to take that comparison seriously.

>>8687215
This is just pedantry. Thousands, millions, billions, trillions, you are deliberately skirting the point and picking an unimportant aspect of the sentence.

Then using it to change the subject to the age of the earth. Answer the real point first, then if you want to bring up the age of the earth, just say so.

"And now, I'd like to discuss the age of the earth..."

>>8687278
That's an interesting piece of information, thank you.

>>8687292

So we get our energy from the sun brainlet? And THAT's were we get our energy! Dang, why couldn't we get our energy from the sun that isn't a brainlet. Shhh, dangerous world.

>>8687570
Alright, it's clear you're only recourse is making accusations, insulting people, etc. I'm sorry but it's no longer beneficial to have a conversation with you.

Thank you for your time, and I hope in the future you learn that your communication is hurting you.

You can find plenty of people on the internet who just want to agree with each other and feel good about it, and vent their anger at dealing with people who disagree.

If you need to insult people, I think that would be slightly more healthy than doing it in the middle of a discussion.

But the best advice I could give you, is to give it up altogether.

File: God shave the Queen.jpg (154KB, 800x1066px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x1066px

>>8687565
>this has never been shown to add information
Lenski's experiments on E. coli have shown exactly that. bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate, an entirely novel trait in their lineage.

File: Burgerdog.jpg (24KB, 467x533px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 467x533px

>>8687582
the animal is only blue at the beginning, in the analogy. through small incremental changes in its hue (microevolution) it eventually becomes an entirely different color (macroevolution) without any clear dividing point.
the problem with your claim is that it depends entirely on the assumption that mutations cannot add information to the genome, one which is easily shown to be false. (see again, Lenski's experiments with E. coli.) gene duplication events are well known, and a wholly new gene can be ADDED to the genome by the copying and later modification of a pre-existing gene. (this is how we have hemoglobin; the gene for myoglobin was duplicated, and one of the copies mutated to have different structure, function, and expression.)

basically, your argument that macroevolution isn't real is that it can't happen in an imaginary world where mutations never add to the genome, only subtract.

File: 1295891446898.jpg (44KB, 355x479px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 355x479px

>>8687614

But time is the core of his point. Orders of magnitude matter. What you say has never be seen happening might very well happen at another timescale. The macroevolution you want to see takes place at a timescale of 100 000 or millions years. We obviously do not have access to what happens over such durations.

Now about macro evolution, let's talk about organisms that we can actually study over long timescales : bacteria.

What about bacteria anti-biotic resistance. That's not a mere change of parameters. I don't know much about bacterial biology, but what I know is that a single bacteria is a fucking huge machine. There are many antibiotic families, with I guess different modes of actions. Many bacteria strains have become immunised to these anti biotics. Again i'm no specialist, but that means a huge redisign of the internal machinery, not just the tweak of a parameter.

>>8686296
This is actually a fabulous question!
The theory of evolution itself relates little with thermodynamics, since the survival against entropy it's the individual or community problem. They have to solve how do get more energy from the environment than the energy they losing to it, something that can be achieved individualy or trough cooperation of a population. Of course they also rely on the gain of other beings (foodsources) that are themselves strugling against entropy. Bottomline, cosmologicaly, without suns we would never existed in the first place, since that in the Sun fight with entropy it makes the fuel to us, and when it lose, it will create and scarce material to other planets and places.

>>8686304
Of course it's about thermo. What would you think if you sudenly reach 0°K and never lose or gain another atom? Would be alive? Could come back to life?

>>8686347
>>8686410
>>8686416
>>8686606
Mutation is not only way of evolving. Actually it's really the flimsy way - mutations are more often going to the entropy-friendly zone. A successful mutation is more rare than a 8bit Zelda Adventure cartridge.
There are inumerous other paths of evolution, such as development changes that do not affect the content of DNA, but actually it's expression. Environmental changes also drive evolution courses, such as the oxidation of the atmosphere by stromatolites that probably drove the greatest extinction of all time.
There's also horizontal interchange of DNA content, virus-driven, the same technology we use to put pork insuline on bacteria, or make genetic modified organisms. Our whole imune system is belivied to be a family of virus proteinsthat work with membrane surface reckoning, acquired in the stage of haghfishs that have evolutionary drifted througout vertebrates.
The epigenetic turning on and off genes plays a much more heavy part on evolution than the mutation of the genes itself.

>>8686502
You are certainly the proof that not all of us did.

File: BM-BD-HalfTruth.jpg (111KB, 1016x466px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1016x466px

>>8687663
>>8687677
>>8687679
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/hijacking-good-science-lenskis-bacteria-support-creation/
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/ecoli.php

File: Galaxy Bottle.jpg (742KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 1920x1200px

>>8687601
>when Tolkien included lineages in books like LOTR it was inspired by, the Bible
>I was only pretending to be retarded!
Hindu scripture also has long genealogical lists, and there's no evidence that its authors were in correspondence with any of the authors of the Abrahamic scriptures. are both of those mutually contradictory creation myths true all of a sudden?

>>8687614
>This is just pedantry. Thousands, millions, billions, trillions, you are deliberately skirting the point and picking an unimportant aspect of the sentence.
if you don't see a difference between processes that operate on scales of thousands of years (e.g. human civilization, lifetimes of some long-lived organisms) versus trillions of years (the lifespan of the Stelliferous Era)...then there's no hope for you.
an amoeba evolving into a terrestrial animal? impossible over thousands of years, very possible indeed over billions of years.
you call it pedantry, I call it basic knowledge of earth history. creationists etc. cling to their belief that evolution couldn't have brought about modern biodiversity mainly because they are incapable of imagining just how huge the scales of time and space are. an entire planet over billions of years...can lead to some very unlikely things happening.

>>8687266
>no one has replied to refute this
Guess I win, then. Stay triggered, Darwinists.

>>8686631
>Assuming you even have the necessary background to understand the answer I'm about to give (you don't)...

This thread is oozing with arrogance. Can't you make your point without acting like a middle-schooler?

>>8687162

More rage answers. At least you gave a real answer after expressing unnecessary anger and rudeness.

is anyone on this thread over the age of 20? If so, why aren't you acting like adults? Because it's the Internet and you want to feel like a kid again?

>>8687679
Evolution works over many timescales. There's macroevolution as well as microevolution. Some species takes hundreds of millions of years to evolve, other simply change because of stocastic reasons, such as radiation, environment sudden change (more common on bacteria). Hell! we're creating new species and strains right now everyday!

If you try to rule ONE way of evolving, you'll be blind to all the other that exist. The "rule one" might count for the most cases, but many ways is always more than one way, at least qualitatively.

>>8686296
Evolution is negentropy

>>8687706
I might not agree with all of your points but your delivery of them (except for the unnecessary jab at the end) was top notch. Thank you for being a normal human being and not treating the internet like a school playground.

Because of your kind manner in speaking, and lack of angry tone, I actually read and thought about what you wrote. Please be an example to the roughly 90+% of the other people in this thread.

>>8687711
Keep on keeping on brother. Thanks for answering them. Let us Christian's support each other and not be isolated. You have my love and I pray blessing on you.

File: Gotta go fast.jpg (98KB, 710x819px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 710x819px

>>8687711
the bullshit about antibiotic resistance was anticipated >>8687152
if an antibiotic functions by attacking a vital protein in bacteria, ceasing expression of the protein won't make the bacteria immune; it will just make them dead. how antibiotic resistance ACTUALLY arises is either by a change in the shape of the protein (such that it is no longer affected by the antibiotic, but retains its essential function) or by the de novo expression of an enzyme that degrades the antibiotic before it can attack its target.

as for Lenski's experiments, the Cit+ mutation proceeded exactly as I explained >>8687677: through duplication of a pre-existing sequence followed by modification of that sequence. just because it makes use of parts already at hand doesn't mean it's not generating new information.

>>8687753
>why aren't you acting like adults?
when you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers.

>>8687720
>>This is just pedantry. Thousands, millions, billions, trillions, you are deliberately skirting the point and picking an unimportant aspect of the sentence.

Pedants are people who can't find an argument to the actual point, so they pick on a word choice that happens to be not 100% technically correct.

It happens less often when people speak as opposed to type because it would be too hard to constantly interrupt someone for every single english expression.

Thousands, millions, 'a lot of time', the conversation wasn't about time or the age of the earth, at all, you just picked a single word choice that was wrong and want to argue about an entirely different subject. Its useless.

Get back to me when you actually want to read what people say, and have the same conversation they're having instead of diverting it to something else you're more comfortable with.

Or at least have the decency to say you don't really want to talk about it, but you would like to talk about the age of the earth instead.

Anyway, I can't waste any more time on pedantry it never goes anywhere. No matter what I answer to you there is no garantee you won't change the subject again, and again, in the same fashion and I know for experience of dealing with people like that it is a frustrating waste of time.

>>8687801
So you're saying it gained and lost information simultaneously?
http://evidentcreation.com/?p=452

>>8687801
>>why aren't you acting like adults?
>when you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers.

You just proved the point by responding like a twelve year old instead of admitting humbly that 'yes, I act like a kid in this way.'

>>8686296
See >>8686304
Entropy works to compensate for the unknown. Were you to be using this allegorically then its a system set into a complex by which parameters emerge to prevent most thermo dispositions.
>>8686306
Were you to assume in a direct proof, surely. It's not an explanation though.
>>8686314
>>8686318
>Not disclosing your intentions to grant yourself leverage
>>8686316
>Allowing him that leverage
>>8686320
>Doesn't read into the context
>Appeals to a demographic tendencies
Stop shit posting or same fagging, I don't care which
>>8686324
Are you brain dead? Don't try to look down on someone who hasn't been under a false premise.
Recognize that this response does not hinge on the possibility of NOT being a bait thread, the response would be the same.
>>8686347
Abiogenesis isn't a problem and evidence does exist in theory to its occurrences. As a technicality it can be observed, otherwise most empirical evidence is admittedly figurative in some way.

>>8686391
You are a jewish sect, act like it. Read your religious books and find some oral law that exclaims that when the pentasceque references the fetus as if it were to be pronounced an object by law, that they ment it was some lesser form of life that couldnt not be considered equal.
Exegesis compensates, but it hardly fixes all answers.

Read some Philo for god's sake.

>>8687788
Thanks =]

Should left the jab, agree.

>>8687843
>>Not disclosing your intentions to grant yourself leverage
Why? So you can ad hominem me away?

>>Allowing him that leverage
You mean allowing me to respond like a normal human being?

>>8687850
Your approach was blunt, you just delayed being ad hominemed away

That green text set up the next response, it was a meager criticism to that person directly
Yes, responding less "like a normal human being" can be useful. I wouldn't prefer 4chan were it so mechanical

File: debait.png (24KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 800x500px

>>8687822
>you're saying it gained and lost information simultaneously?
I am in fact NOT saying that.
the great thing about gene duplication is that you can tinker with one copy of a gene without losing the functionality of the original copy.

LMAO this topic reminds me of a paper that I read and enjoyed so much when I was an uneducated pseudointellectual brat.

www.ler.esalq.usp.br/aulas/lce1302/life_as_a_manifestation.pdf

>>8687550
You are the liar.

>>8687933

And you totally disrespect the rest of us by misrepresenting the facts, using fallacious arguments and misrepresenting evolutionary theory.

e.g. suggesting that evolution from amoebas to humans took "thousands of years". No - billions.

>>8687814
>>8687550
>>8687939

You should quit with that pseudo arguing bullshit. That's not much more convincing than yelling "liar".
No let's hear what you have to say :
1. Do you follow the precepts of Islam, the updated version of christianity ?
2. What would even be the meaning of a god that would demand attention from humans, saying that those who believe are good and those that do not will go to hell ? That's just some bullying bullshit.

But where it gets funnier, is where there are in fact multiple interpretations of god, each claiming to be the only good one. So what is this, a game of picking the right interpretation in order to be able to go to heaven ? This doesn't make any sense.

>>8686401
>Evolution creates organisms that are best fit for their environment
Wrong. If something works, it works. That's it. It can take any form that continues to reproduce. There is no such thing as "best" to begin with, nor does it produce an optimised organism fit for it's environment. If it survives and reproduces, then it continues to exist.

File: 1478673937250.gif (494KB, 387x305px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 387x305px

ITT: Brainlets who can't into eternal recurrence

>>8687843
>Are you brain dead?
Here's another guy who can't seem to answer a single question without insulting someone. Also, looking down? The guy who said thermo 4 times angrily as if the op did anything wrong by asking a question was looking down on them, for asking a question. I think you're probably a hypocrite.

Why don't you not look down on others who ask questions and stop calling them brain dead and names, because calling people names really helps others want to listen to what you say. No, it in facts makes them not want to, and therefore anything you write after that is a complete waste of your time because you're talking to their emotions by unnecessarily insulting them instead of talking to their minds as an equal. You're the one looking down on people buddy.

>>8687933
Can you stop trolling on this thread?

>>8688035
You're another one of those guys who repeats what you just heard and pretends that you're arguing a point. The person right before you just said 'if something works it works' that's what 'fit for their environment' means. Fit to survive in that environment.

Lots of people in here don't actually read the posts they respond to, or they ignore them because they want to give a monologue instead of listening to what was actually said.

>>8686296
The Earth isn't a closed system.

>>8686522
Earth and Sun aren't closed from the universe. Comets and Meteors pass by all the time.

Creationists should be gassed. It takes a cancerous, willfully ignorant mindset to deny evolution in the face of the overwhelming piles of evidence for it. People who can't or refuse to learn basic science should be put in camps.

>>8686422
>We don't know, we weren't there
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_do_you_know%3F_Were_you_there%3F

>>8688449
>Rationalwiki
>what is Badger's Law?

Men in their arrogance claim to understand the nature of creation, and devise elaborate theories to describe its behavior. But always they discover in the end that God was quite a bit more clever than they thought.

I didn't know /sci/ was full of religious brainlets that can't grasp evolution.

Diss a . ed

>>8688525
Beware, you who seek the First and Final principles, for you are trampling the Garden of an angry God, and He awaits you just beyond the last theorem.

>>8688531
What the fuck kind of word salad is that.

>>8688538
A delicious one.

File: x62e385466272d4c59ceee9d013aea803.jpg.pagespeed.ic.NzxoZ_Ap0_.jpg (43KB, 370x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 370x500px

>>8688549
Seems rather pungent with self-satisfactory rhetoric. Must be an acquired taste.

File: 1484272183130.jpg (14KB, 251x242px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 251x242px

>>8686422
>What is creationism's foundation? Written historical records made by reliable people.
Kek. I myself am a creationist, but please don't ever use that argument again.
That statement can be both discredited and credited in so many different ways, it's futile to even mention it.

>>8686296

Evolution is white racist theory

File: whitevolution.jpg (217KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1366x768px

>>8688581

Evolution of white people

>>8688482
God in his arrogance claim to understand the nature of creation and devise religious scripture to describe its behavior. But he always discover in the end that super-God was quite a bit more clever than he thought.

>>8688621
das ray-siss mane

>>8686296
The second law can be violated with non-trivial probability in some systems. Especially non-equilibrium ones. Google Bayesian second law for some cool stuff