Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 11:57 PM
358 online now:
(358 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,506 Year: 21,112/21,208 Month: 1,545/2,326 Week: 881/345 Day: 119/124 Hour: 1/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Author Topic:   Key points of Evolution
onifre
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 316 of 356 (501135)
03-04-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by alaninnont
03-03-2009 10:22 PM


I'd say it is more probable that a creator was involved.

You think it's more probable that an invisible entity existed before existance - who has never revealed itself in an objective way - rather than natural chemical reactions slowly adapting to each other in their common environment?

How can you justify that...?

Is the nature of natural order, which is observable currently in nature, too hard to postulate...?

Is it really easier to postulate something much more complex - ie. a "creator"...?


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by alaninnont, posted 03-03-2009 10:22 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 7:17 PM onifre has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 317 of 356 (501136)
03-04-2009 4:09 PM


"creationist claptrap." "more ridiculous creationist trees" "what utter bs this is?"

Is this typical of athiest discussion points? If you are trying to win your way into my heart, logic, data, and chocolate work better.

Perhaps you could do a bit of studying in fields scientific, and avoid the creationist websites for a bit.

I have been avoiding creationist websites up to this point in my search fearing, perhaps unjustly, that they would be entrenched in their views and not open for honest discussion.

All of your points of have been refuted ages ago, and your conclusion that there was a creator involved does not follow.

The science in me would like to see some data rather than just taking your word for it.

Ok. Thought about them? Now tell us what the Second law of Themodynamics says.

In simple terms, all things tend toward disorder. As I said in my previous post, the theory of evolution claims that in this situation, life became more and more ordered.

Speaking of trees, huge trees of great complexity and organization manage to grow from tiny seeds without any help from a "creator". How do you reconcile this with your rule of "all things tend toward entropy." Hint: it has something to do with the snowflakes and other things it was suggested you think about.

If you are driving down the highway and you see white stones that spell out the words, "Welcome to Timmins", is your immediate thought;
a) Isn't that interesting that all those white stones rolled down the hill and stopped in exactly the right spot to spell out those words.
or
b) Someone put the stones there?


Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Theodoric, posted 03-04-2009 4:19 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 319 by lyx2no, posted 03-04-2009 4:23 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 320 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2009 5:19 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 321 by Percy, posted 03-04-2009 5:28 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 318 of 356 (501137)
03-04-2009 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 4:09 PM


Are you claiming to be a scientist?
The science in me would like to see some data rather than just taking your word for it.

If you are you don't seem to know much about science.

Now to your description of the second law of thermodynamics.

In simple terms, all things tend toward disorder.

Utter, complete, total bullshit.
This is something even creationists should know not to bring up. The refutations are many. Evidently, you didn't think about snowflakes and such did you. Amazing the tree thing did't sink in either.

Since it is such BS, I wil just give you info I copied. Not worth wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.


Source
This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 4:09 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 319 of 356 (501138)
03-04-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 4:09 PM


ToE & LoT
If you are driving down the highway and you see white stones that spell out the words, "Welcome to Timmins", is your immediate thought;
a) Isn't that interesting that all those white stones rolled down the hill and stopped in exactly the right spot to spell out those words.
or
b) Someone put the stones there?

Is this meant as an example of a violation of the LoT? It's not. The folks who laid it out ate breakfast turning it into less ordered poo. The breakfast was less organized the the total amount of sun shine that went into making it.

3.5 billion years of sunshine went into making single cell organisms evolve into blue whales and sequoias.


Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 4:09 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7418
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 320 of 356 (501148)
03-04-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 4:09 PM


In simple terms, all things tend toward disorder. As I said in my previous post, the theory of evolution claims that in this situation, life became more and more ordered.

In order for evolution to function as almost all qualified biologists would have us believe, is it necessary that the net amount of entropy is constant or is reduced?

In other words, does evolution require work that is 100% or more efficient? Or, if we examine the system in its entirety do we find a lot of inefficiency?

 
(workable )
(energy flow) (energy+entropy)
SUN ---------------------->EARTH------------------------------>Space
WORK is done

As with any statement about thermodynamics, if you want to make a claim about it, could you also share your maths? Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 4:09 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15680
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 321 of 356 (501154)
03-04-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 4:09 PM


Hi Alaninnont,

You're drawing the types of responses you are because you're pushing one of the more simple-minded creationist fallacies. If you want some original answers then show some original effort, like actually thinking about how the order of a snowflake or a tree emerges without creative guidance. What you're pushing here we've seen literally a hundred times before, and that's just here at this one discussion board.

And some honesty would be nice, too, rather than obvious dissembling like this:

I have been avoiding creationist websites...

Sure you have. You're only pushing one of the oldest and most fallacious creationist misconceptions by sheer happenstance.

I think if you're honest about where you're drawing your ideas from people will take you more seriously. So far you're just repeating standard creationist nonsense about 2LOT that makes it clear how little you understand about thermodynamics.

Though it's a common enough analogy, 2LOT and entropy is not about the kind of order and disorder that most people think it is. Cleaning your closet does not lower the entropy of the closet. Order and disorder is just the way 2LOT is often explained to laypeople, leading people like yourself to draw erroneous conclusions like that only intelligence can produce order, or that in the absence of intelligence disorder can only increase.

All 2LOT really says is that the entropy of a system can never decrease, which I think you said yourself at one point, and if you had stuck with that you would have done fine. But 2LOT says nothing about the distribution of entropy within the system, and the application of work can change that distribution. For example, the work done by energy from the sun can decrease the entropy of life on Earth.

Besides, don't you think that if evolution really violated 2LOT that the chemists and physicists would have called this to the attention of biologists by now?

The fact of the matter is that the creationist 2LOT argument has staying power because it is so simple and plausible-sounding that it easily convinces trusting people like yourself, who then march to the slaughter at discussion boards like this one. Welcome aboard! :D

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 4:09 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 322 of 356 (501162)
03-04-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by onifre
03-04-2009 4:04 PM


You think it's more probable that an invisible entity existed before existance - who has never revealed itself in an objective way - rather than natural chemical reactions slowly adapting to each other in their common environment?

How can you justify that...?

Is the nature of natural order, which is observable currently in nature, too hard to postulate...?

Is it really easier to postulate something much more complex - ie. a "creator"...?

I've been trying for the last couple of months to get a handle on the issue. I been reading some books, thinking, and visiting evolution and ID sites and am right now tending toward the existence of a creator as more probable than complete chance. There are many reasons that I am tending this way but my thought process concerning the "beginning" question went like this. The universe couldn't have existed forever since, if it had, heat and energy would be evenly dispersed throughout the universe. The other option is that it was created. That it was created from nothing doesn't make scientific sense. That a being who theoretically existed forever created it doesn't make scientific sense. A being, however, holds a slight logical advantage in that a solely physical universe couldn't create itself. I've even considered aliens or virtual reality. It makes the science in me cringe but I'm trying to be as open minded about this as possible and therefore trying not to rule out any possiblities. What's your opinion on the original creation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 4:04 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 7:39 PM alaninnont has responded
 Message 331 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-09-2009 4:49 AM alaninnont has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 448 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 323 of 356 (501164)
03-04-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by alaninnont
03-04-2009 7:17 PM


Hi alaninnont,

I've been trying for the last couple of months to get a handle on the issue. I been reading some books, thinking, and visiting evolution and ID sites and am right now tending toward the existence of a creator as more probable than complete chance. There are many reasons that I am tending this way but my thought process concerning the "beginning" question went like this. The universe couldn't have existed forever since, if it had, heat and energy would be evenly dispersed throughout the universe. The other option is that it was created. That it was created from nothing doesn't make scientific sense. That a being who theoretically existed forever created it doesn't make scientific sense. A being, however, holds a slight logical advantage in that a solely physical universe couldn't create itself. I've even considered aliens or virtual reality. It makes the science in me cringe but I'm trying to be as open minded about this as possible and therefore trying not to rule out any possiblities. What's your opinion on the original creation?

My original response to you was off topic, and your response to me has taken us too off topic.. Sorry for that.

If you'll give me a day I will open a new topic on these issues so we can debate them properly without side tracking this thread:

1.

alan writes:

I been reading some books, thinking, and visiting evolution and ID sites and am right now tending toward the existence of a creator as more probable than complete chance- I will change "complete chance" to "natural process".


No one has ever said "complete chance".

2.

alan writes:

That it was created from nothing doesn't make scientific sense. That a being who theoretically existed forever created it doesn't make scientific sense. A being, however, holds a slight logical advantage in that a solely physical universe couldn't create itself.

3.

alan writes:

What's your opinion on the original creation?

Because frankly I am curious as to how it's easier to postulate an entity that just existed without any need for an explanation to that or to the enormous amount of complexity it would require, rather than natural processes, which currently are in affect maintaining the order that we see today, being much easier to postulate?

It would seem, in my opinion, that it takes greater effort to imagine a creator than accept natural order, since nature is actually physically seen and interacted with.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by alaninnont, posted 03-04-2009 7:17 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by alaninnont, posted 03-05-2009 4:37 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 324 of 356 (501325)
03-05-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by onifre
03-04-2009 7:39 PM


I would love to discuss this more with you. I tried to start a post and the administrator put me in the Great Debate section with an individual named subbie. I'm going to try and hash things out with him/her/it(could be a robot). I reread your post and realize I misinterpreted. My excuse is ....um, can't think of one right now but I apologise. Can we reconnect after my date with subbie?

Let me ask you about what you mean by

No one has ever said "complete chance".
If it's not complete chance, then the inference is that there was some guidance. What other options are there?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 7:39 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by RAZD, posted 03-05-2009 6:41 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 18858
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 325 of 356 (501345)
03-05-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by alaninnont
03-05-2009 4:37 PM


Simple - selection.
Hi alaninont, welcome to the fray

Let me ask you about what you mean by
No one has ever said "complete chance".
If it's not complete chance, then the inference is that there was some guidance. What other options are there?

Selection. Because not all organisms can survive and breed at will, some will and some won't. Just as artificial selection - your guidance provided by humans within breeding programs - does not create new features, it just selects those that are preferred by the breeder/s, so does selection occur naturally because there are differences between organisms. These differences result in different ability to survive and breed.

Differential survival and reproduction of organisms within a population, when not all members can survive and breed, results in selection of traits that favor survival and breeding: some organisms will be better able to survive, some will be better able to breed, some will be better at both.

Obviously any organism that dies before it reproduces will not pass on their hereditary traits to the next generation.

Obviously an organims that has many offspring will pass on their hereditary traits in a higher proportion than those that only have a few offspring.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : t


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by alaninnont, posted 03-05-2009 4:37 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

olivortex
Member (Idle past 2275 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 326 of 356 (501428)
03-06-2009 8:48 AM


ouch
quote:
I've even considered aliens or virtual reality.

When i wrecked my knee i was an infinity of miles away from picturing a virtual reality. I think my nerves are really real. Though i never asserted the idea was ridiculous...well i won't get Wachowskian here.

As for the "martians" or any other kind of extraterrestrial life having something to do with our existence, let's not be closed. Actually it would be fun to see all the hardcore (i mean the ignorant lecturing ones) creationists face when they see there is not an unprovable mighty creator but a way of explaining we are even smaller and unimportant than we thought.

Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.

Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.


  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2934 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 327 of 356 (501583)
03-06-2009 7:47 PM


When i wrecked my knee i was an infinity of miles away from picturing a virtual reality. I think my nerves are really real. Though i never asserted the idea was ridiculous...well i won't get Wachowskian here.

And individuals who have lost a leg report feeling pain as real as when it was present. One hundred years ago there was 350 km of paved road in North America. Cars and planes were in their infancy. Image what the technology will be like in another 1000 years. There are solar systems that are far older than ours and so if there is life in other solar systems, the technology to completely fool us could easily exist.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by olivortex, posted 03-08-2009 4:31 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

olivortex
Member (Idle past 2275 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 328 of 356 (501920)
03-08-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by alaninnont
03-06-2009 7:47 PM


pains
The pain you are refering to is generally called "phantom pain".

Wikipedia:

Description:

Phantom pain sensations are described as perceptions that an individual experiences relating to a limb or an organ that is not physically part of the body. Limb loss is a result of either removal by amputation or congenital limb deficiency (Glummarra et al, 2007). However, phantom limb sensations can also occur following nerve avulsion or spinal cord injury. Sensations are recorded most frequently following the amputation of an arm or a leg, but may also occur following the removal of a breast or an internal organ. Phantom limb pain is the feeling of pain in an absent limb or a portion of a limb. The pain sensation varies from individual to individual.

Phantom limb sensation is the term given to any sensory phenomenon (except pain) which is felt at an absent limb or a portion of the limb. It has been known that at least 80% of amputees experience phantom sensations at some time of their lives. There are various types of sensations that may be felt:

Sensations related to the phantom limb's posture, length and volume e.g. feeling that the phantom limb is behaving just like a normal limb like sitting with the knee bent or feeling that the phantom limb is as heavy as the other limb. Sometimes, an amputee will experience a sensation called telescoping. This is the feeling that the phantom limb is gradually shortening over time.
Sensations of movement (e.g. feeling that the phantom foot is moving).
Sensations of touch, temperature, pressure and itchiness. Many amputees report of feeling heat, tingling and itchy.
The term “phantom limb” was first coined by American neurologist Silas Weir Mitchell in 1871 (Halligan, 2002). Mitchell described that “thousands of spirit limbs were haunting as many good soldiers, every now and then tormenting them” (Bittar et al, 2005). However, in 1551, French military surgeon Ambroise Paré recorded the first documentation of phantom limb pain when he reported that, “For the patients, long after the amputation is made, say that they still feel pain in the amputated part” (Bittar et al, 2005).

The mirror box therapy:

Mirror box therapy allows for illusions of movement and touch in a phantom limb by inducing somatosensory and motor pathway coupling between the phantom and real limb (Glummarra et al, 2007). Many patients experience pain as a result of a clenched phantom limb, and because phantom limbs are not under voluntary control, unclenching becomes impossible (Ramachandran and Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996). The theory behind the mirror box treatment is that the brain has become accustomed to the fact that a phantom limb is paralyzed because there is no feedback from the phantom back to the brain to inform it otherwise. Ramachandran and Rogers-Ramachandran believed that if the brain received visual feedback that the limb had moved, then the phantom limb would become unparalyzed (Ramachandran and Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996).

To create the visual feedback, mirror boxes are constructed to create an illusion of a second limb. The mirror box is constructed so that it has a vertical mirror placed in the center, and the lid remains off. The intact limb is placed on one side of the mirror, and in the patient’s sight, while the amputated limb is placed on the other side, out of sight. The patient sees an intact second limb through the mirror and sends motor commands to both limbs to make symmetric movements. The movement gives the brain positive feedback that the phantom has moved, and it becomes unparalyzed (Ramachandran and Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996).

In a study of ten patients with upper phantom limb paralysis, nine patients were able to move the phantom limb, and eight of the patients able to move the phantom limb had their pain alleviated (Ramachandran and Rogers-Ramachandran, 1996). Since Ramachandran and Ramachandran’s pioneer study, there have been multiple additional studies to support the mirror box findings for patients with upper limb phantom pain. MacLachlan, McDonald, and Walcoch presented the first case of mirror box treatment for lower limb phantoms in 2004. The patient, Alan, experienced a painful crossing of his toes in the morning, and the pain worsened as the day progressed. After three weeks of mirror box treatment twice a day, Alan no longer felt any painful sensations from crossed toes (MacLachlan, McDonald, and Walcoch, 2004).

If there are means for treatment, it suggests it's not completely beyond us, or at least we can legitimately think that we will fully understand the phenomenon one day, which doesn't seem to be the fully the case yet.

quote:
Image what the technology will be like in another 1000 years. There are solar systems that are far older than ours and so if there is life in other solar systems, the technology to completely fool us could easily exist.

Once again i did not say virtual reality was too fanciful an idea to be taken in consideration. Then it may mean that in the program where we wander nerves were designed in order to make us feel pain or pleasure, and phantom pain, to stay in the "programming" analogy, would be some sort of bug. As i said let's not be closed. But to this day, nothing has indicated we were part of such a thing, and i still maintain my nerves are simply real, for what my conception of reality is worth. When i was a kid i was fascinated by the fakirs, or any people who could master their body to the point where they could walk on burning rocks, or put a thick needle through their arm or mouth, etc. There seems to be some ways to tame the pain, but at some scale. If one of these people ever gets one of his/her leg cut off, he/she will feel what we call pain.

With the means we possess today on our planet, it's of course not forbidden to image greater scales of technological or physical evolution, but hospitals can't deal with imaging a vicious "designer", letting us believe we feel pain, whether this designer is a baby extraterrestrial playing with his video game or a mighty bearded man in a white robe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by alaninnont, posted 03-06-2009 7:47 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4753
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 329 of 356 (501930)
03-08-2009 5:10 PM


Topic!
The virtual reality/phantom pain material is NOT on topic here. No more posts on it, Thank you!
Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by olivortex, posted 03-09-2009 4:28 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

olivortex
Member (Idle past 2275 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 330 of 356 (501971)
03-09-2009 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by AdminNosy
03-08-2009 5:10 PM


Re: Topic!
It's hard to let some posts unanswered, but, OK :)

Edited by olivortex, : missing letter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by AdminNosy, posted 03-08-2009 5:10 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017