[en] Evolution or Creationism

[Angryminer]

Angryminer, your example wouldn't be considered "evolution". It would more or less be a mutuation that was caused by man. Like a cat been born with 1 blue eye and the other green. Evolution is the proccess by which animals adapt to their enviroment, where only the strongest and smartest survive. This process taking 100's, 1000's and millions of years depending on the changes and enviroment.My point was that they are actually the same thing. It is absolutely the same mechanism that causes both things. We just give it different names. Evolution isn't an active process. A creature doesn't adapt. All creatures are just subject to 'random' genetical mutation like every living thing on earth, which automatically and without further prerequisite induces what we call evolution. Evolution isn't a process by itself:
Evolution is the observed sum of changes caused by genetical mutation.
These two mechanisms are absolutely interdependant. That is what I'm trying to say.

Angryminer

[catt]

Angryminer: That is only true if you see it from an Evolutionists point of view. Seen from a Creationists point of view breeding something is an artificial "creation" by man (another example that "intelligent design" works).

I'm not saying you are wrong, I totally agree with you.

I just think that the whole concept of creationism is not really understandable if you've not been really exposed to it. It all comes down to taking every word in the Bible literal. If your believe is that all animals were created by God on a certain day, you have a perfect explanation on how all animals were created. Even evolutionary lines we can observe don't mean anything since in this light they are just all separate creations. In this sense it always amazes me what effort Creationists make to disregard "missing links". It's as if they were paranoid to be proven wrong so they deny something there is no need to deny really. Why should God not create something that's half bird and half reptile?

I'm not sure you can contradict evolution purely by looking at organisms. What you need is other data: The geological context of fossils, the appearance of fossils in certain layers of rock, dating-methods, molecular genetics things like that.

By the way: It is NOT true that we can't observe evolution in our lifetime. For example within the last 50 years we have had an incredible development in bacterias to become resistant to medical treatments. We can also observe evolution in some species like the Chiclid fishes (I've already mentioned this I think).

[Angryminer]

My argumentation follows the following idea:
Discussing evolution is discussing the effect, not the cause.
Thus I try to connect evolution with it's cause, genetical mutation. See the bird example above. Once we agree that genetical mutation is the direct and only cause of what we observe as evolution we're discussing something that we can touch and actually see and describe.
So following my argumentation, denying evolution absolutely equals denying genetical mutation. And this is where we have knowledge that there *is* genetical mutation in the procreation process. Otherwise dog breeding wouldn't work. And that means that evolution and dog breeding are interdependant. If dog breeding works then there must be evolution, and everyone who claims that there is no evolution automatically also claims that dog breeding is impossible.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

I really wonder what a creationist point can be.

I've heard arguments that genetical mutations are possible "inside" of one specie and may lead to things like dog breeding.
(also argument that a cattle today has completely different body than a cattle in early midle ages, only 1000 years ago! was replied: it is possible, but it cannot lead into procreation of a new specie.
Why? I asked and the reply was. because a specie can only be created :lol:)

and when I ask if a dog and a woolf are 2 different species? So very close relatives that some dog breeds look and much closer to a woolf than other dog breeds. How is it possible?
The answer is. They can be as close as it is possible but they could never be one specie because one was created as a dog and the other as a woolf and they not even have common relative

[Doux]

I'd guess at ~3000 K, but I might well be wrongI can confirm this now, it is at 3000 K (~3300 °C) that hydrogen recombines with its electrons (transition from plasma to gas phase).

Cosmic microwave background, hmmmm. I've not heard of that. Interesting. How does it work?Well, that you did not hear of this yet is to be expected. Newly done research in several scientific fields only very slowly drips into society. For instance, I take it most people nowadays have heard of atoms and molecules; this was not common knowledge in 1932, when even smaller particles were discovered.
What more elaboration on the subject of cosmic background radiation would you like? What I wrote was a concise general idea behind the cosmic microwave background - any more information might go too deep, or is there anything that needs to be clarified? I'd be willing to do so, of course :go:

One of the points raised is one I'm having trouble with - the Bible has been translated, and it thus can probably not be fully accurate, but still people believe fully in it whilst having faith that the Bible is correctly translated! Of course, this is all solved when the supernatural would intervene and keeps the bible accurate.

And so, as catt stated, the discussion pretty much ends.

I think that when time progresses, the scientific discoveries of today will slowly be known to and be accepted by the public, and faith will be adjusted to that. Everybody knows gravity, but the laws as described by Newton and theories thought out by Einstein still remain unknown, as well as quantumphysics - in general, it is no common knowledge that the world is fundamentally quantised.

[People's Republic of China]

the big issue I have is, is that evolution goes against the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = MC2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (M) times the square of a constant (C). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

Unless the matter is already there, how does one cell become many bigger better cells.

And entropy, which says that he universe is always in a state of increasing disorder(examples include erosion, earth's magnetic field, your workspace); how can something improve when everythong is falling apart.

[catt]

the big issue I have is, is that evolution goes against the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed.


The first law of Thermodynamics only refers to closed systems. Organisms, however are anything but closed (let's not picture this now).


Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:
E = MC2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (M) times the square of a constant (C). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.


I am no physicist but I don't know how you'd get a constant of energy and matter out of that equation. Besides, I don't know how that contradicts Evolution.


Unless the matter is already there, how does one cell become many bigger better cells.


The matter (the atoms) is already there, Evolution does not suggest that new matter is created out of the blue. How atoms form however, has got nothing to do with Evolution (but we can discuss it here too if you want to).


And entropy, which says that he universe is always in a state of increasing disorder(examples include erosion, earth's magnetic field, your workspace); how can something improve when everythong is falling apart.


You are trying to apply entropy as it is defined in thermodynamics but again, using it for organisms is the wrong context. Organisms are not in a thermodynamical equilibrium. Besides, entropy does not always equal disorder in physics. There are many natural processes that do exactly the opposite, e.g. depending on the chemical components involved. For one thing I can assure you that erosion does not always result in disorder. For example we get extremely well sorted deposits of sand through erosion.

[Richard]

the big issue I have is, is that evolution goes against the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. However, it can not be created nor destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = MC2
In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (M) times the square of a constant (C). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

Unless the matter is already there, how does one cell become many bigger better cells.

And entropy, which says that he universe is always in a state of increasing disorder(examples include erosion, earth's magnetic field, your workspace); how can something improve when everythong is falling apart.

That would be the same exact way 1 sperm and one egg become a baby. Besides, how exactly evolution goes agaisnt it? Animals evolved from other animals, carbon,amino acids and sugars(bases of life) were/are plaintyfull, so where is the law broken?

[Doux]

I say we keep the discussion as accurately as possible - I'll have to clarify some things.The first law of Thermodynamics only refers to closed systems. Organisms, however are anything but closed (let's not picture this now).Thermodynamics can refer to any system, but in particular to the universe as a whole; thermodynamics also applies to organisms since they are part of the universe.

I am no physicist but I don't know how you'd get a constant of energy and matter out of that equation. Besides, I don't know how that contradicts Evolution.E = m * c² , or, "energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light", is a correct equation posed by Einstein.

You are trying to apply entropy as it is defined in thermodynamics but again, using it for organisms is the wrong context. Organisms are not in a thermodynamical equilibrium. Besides, entropy does not always equal disorder in physics. There are many natural processes that do exactly the opposite, e.g. depending on the chemical components involved. For one thing I can assure you that erosion does not always result in disorder. For example we get extremely well sorted deposits of sand through erosion.Allow me to correct you: thermodynamics can be applied to any system, in thermodynamic equilibrium or not, and entropy always refers to the amount of disorder or chaos (altough this is a somewhat simplified, popular expression - it is right). There are systems that decrease in entropy, such as the formation of living creatures, but the most important point is that the increase in entropy of the universe as a whole still is greater than the decrease of the entropy of a system! This one possible formulation of what the second law says: The entropy of the universe always is constant or increases.

[...]
Unless the matter is already there, how does one cell become many bigger better cells.

And entropy, which says that he universe is always in a state of increasing disorder(examples include erosion, earth's magnetic field, your workspace); how can something improve when everythong is falling apart.You described the first law of thermodynamics very well! Also, you're right when the total energy/matter (as stated, these are equal) in the universe should be constant - if not, our theories are wrong. But so far, experiments have only confirmed that the theory is right - it has become a law, just like the laws of Newton.

Though, the process of evolution hasn't really to do with the procreation of cells, but this latter is simply possible -no new energy or matter is created- because cells feed on (in)organic materials and simply build new cells from that.

Also, what you apparently define as improve, is not the definition of increasing entropy. The universe's entropy always increases; your workspace is really not an example. The effects of the second law can be readily found on molecular scale - different molecules tend to mix, not to unmix, they tend to exchange heat to reach equilibrium, they do not tend to have one part of something very hot and the remainder very cold. It is possible to seemingly go against the second law, think of the refrigerator, but in fact, a lot of work has to be done to keep the inside cooler than the outside and a part of this work increases the entropy of the surroundings more than the entropy of the inside of the refrigerator is decreased.
As I already mentioned, living creatures are rather organised, and this is only possible because living creatures increase the entropy of the surroundings more than their own entropy is decreased when the molecules were formed to the living. Life and evolution are in agreement with thermodynamics.

[Angryminer]

About the first law of thermodynamics - Doux vs catt: You can formulate it in different ways. If your formulation involves the constancy of energy, then this only works with a thermodynamically closed system. You can use the more modern definition which also applies to unclosed systems, but then the energy in the system doesn't need to be constant anymore. So if PRoC speaks about the constant energy in a system, then this is only true when we talk about a closed system, which an organic cell or creature obviously isn't.
But really, I can see no reason why any law of thermodynamic would be violated by or because of evolution.

Angryminer

[catt]

Thermodynamics can refer to any system, but in particular to the universe as a whole; thermodynamics also applies to organisms since they are part of the universe.


I never said anything against that but the First Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems.


E = m * c² , or, "energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light", is a correct equation posed by Einstein.


I never said the equation was wrong. I just don't see what it has to do with evolution. It is "just" bridging between energy and matter.


Allow me to correct you: thermodynamics can be applied to any system, in thermodynamic equilibrium or not, and entropy always refers to the amount of disorder or chaos (altough this is a somewhat simplified, popular expression - it is right).


I'm sorry, I used the wrong word. Of course organisms do have an entropy but you can't really allot a certain entropy to them since they are not in a thermodynamical equilibrium. At least I think it is not yet wholly researched.
In fact, we are talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics here.
-----
Edit:
I just found this interesting article about entropy and life, it also talks about Gibbs free energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
-----

There are systems that decrease in entropy, such as the formation of living creatures, but the most important point is that the increase in entropy of the universe as a whole still is greater than the decrease of the entropy of a system! This one possible formulation of what the second law says: The entropy of the universe always is constant or increases.


I could not put it better. I just want to add a quote from Greenes book "The fabric of the cosmos": The overwhelming drive towards disorder does not mean that orderly structures like stars and planets, or orderly life forms like plants and animals, can't form. They can. They obviously do. What the second law of thermodynamics entails is that in the formation of order there is generally a more-than-compensating generation of disorder. The entropy balance sheet is still in the black even though certain constituents have become more ordered.


Life and evolution are in agreement with thermodynamics.


Exactly!

[Richard]

Though, the process of evolution hasn't really to do with the procreation of cells, but this latter is simply possible -no new energy or matter is created- because cells feed on (in)organic materials and simply build new cells from that.

Also, what you apparently define as improve, is not the definition of increasing entropy. The universe's entropy always increases; your workspace is really not an example. The effects of the second law can be readily found on molecular scale - different molecules tend to mix, not to unmix, they tend to exchange heat to reach equilibrium, they do not tend to have one part of something very hot and the remainder very cold. It is possible to seemingly go against the second law, think of the refrigerator, but in fact, a lot of work has to be done to keep the inside cooler than the outside and a part of this work increases the entropy of the surroundings more than the entropy of the inside of the refrigerator is decreased.
As I already mentioned, living creatures are rather organised, and this is only possible because living creatures increase the entropy of the surroundings more than their own entropy is decreased when the molecules were formed to the living. Life and evolution are in agreement with thermodynamics.

:go: Very well explained.
Animals grow and procreate by gaining energy from other organism, the same way the engine of a car (combustion engine) uses gas to make electricity,heat,ect... to run.
If you think about it, the law of conservation would be wrong in creationism, since according to it everything was created out of nothing by a God.

[Angryminer]

If you think about it, the law of conservation would be wrong in creationism, since according to it everything was created out of nothing by a God.I don't think you can use that as an argument, because there isn't a proven theory either about where the energy came from that is being conserved since the first millisecond of time.
But please don't discuss further on that, we're on about evolution. Not the big bang. I just wanted to respond to Richard's point.

Angryminer

[Richard]

Hmm true, true. I was just trying to show PCR how his claim could be twisted against his argument. Anyways you are right, this is something for another discusion about the Big Bang, String Theory, and all other theories about the begining of the universe.
:cheers:

[Doux]

Apparently, I misunderstood you twice, catt. My apologies for that, of course!

[catt]

@ Everybody: Do we have a physicist around? I'd be very much interested in discussing this physical stuff but I have to admit that my studies only scrape the surface of the things discussed above and so I don't have any in-depth knownledge...
It would be great to have a seperate thread though!

@ Doux: No problem, I guess I was not very clear in what I wrote. Apart from that I can't claim to know very much of this and I think it's better to stand corrected than believing something that is wrong.

[Angryminer]

@ Everybody: Do we have a physicist around? I'd be very much interested in discussing this physical stuff but I have to admit that my studies only scrape the surface of the things discussed above and so I don't have any in-depth knownledge...
It would be great to have a seperate thread though!Open a thread on the topic you are interested in and we'll discuss it. :go:

Angryminer

[Doux]

Would we conclude from the poll that creationists browse game forums less often? They're the majority, as far as I know, in the world.

[Elvain]

it might be caused by the fact that generaly among internet users creationists don't seem to be majoity.

in cultures that don't "support" free exchange of information or can't afford it, creatisonsts are majority :wink:

[Richard]

it might be caused by the fact that generaly among internet users creationists don't seem to be majoity.

Cultures that don't "support free exchange of information" or can't afford it, creatisonsts are majority :wink:
lol preciesly