Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Theory of Evolution and model of evolution
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 46 of 54 (442860)
12-22-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Volunteer
12-22-2007 8:07 PM


A (somewhat) complex answer.
Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics correct or not?
Not a question easily answered.
If you are talking in terms of a scientific answer, the answer is, "We don't know." The sine qua non of science is tentativity. There is no hypothesis, theory, law, or any other description of the natural world is that considered to be THE TRUTH. It's all subject to being amended, modified, or even completely discarded, in the face of new evidence or a new hypothesis, theory or law that explain things better. It's possible that the 2LoT is an accurate description of entropy in closed systems. It's also possible that tomorrow someone will conduct an experiment or make an observation in the real world that brings the 2LoT crashing down about our ears.
Given that beginning understanding, the next best answer is that the 2LoT is the currently accepted, best description of entropy in a closed system.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you think the 2LoT represents some sort of problem for the ToE. Here's why it's not.
The 2LoT says
quote:
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
Here are two reasons why the 2LoT doesn't have any effect on the ToE in the least.
1. The earth isn't an "isolated thermodynamic system." It gets considerable energy from the sun.
2. The 2LoT says that total entropy increases. It doesn't rule out the possibility that there are areas within the system where entropy decreases.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Volunteer, posted 12-22-2007 8:07 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 47 of 54 (442862)
12-22-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Volunteer
12-22-2007 8:07 PM


Heads up, Volunteer.
Volunteer, you need to take your question to the appropriate thread.
For example, 2nd Law and Open / Closed Systems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Volunteer, posted 12-22-2007 8:07 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 54 (442872)
12-22-2007 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Volunteer
12-22-2007 8:07 PM


Re: A basic question.
Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics correct or not?
Who knows? Any of the "laws of physics" are not really "laws" that nature must obey. They are merely regularities that we have observed up to now. It is a good question whether or not these will always be observed or whether or not we will eventually discover exceptions to these regularities.

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Volunteer, posted 12-22-2007 8:07 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 49 of 54 (442895)
12-22-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Fosdick
12-11-2007 12:46 PM


evolution is real.
yes. evolution is real. but the chain link fence is not linear.
all evidence points to multiple peices of single celled organism evolving over time to greater more refined forms within their environments, and modify over time to that environment.
but from all evidence, dog species came from diffrent dog species starts, and bird, bird species starts, and monkey, still yet, monkey starts. and man perhapts, their own starting seed.
this would mean, man was man, yet of an earlier form, a dog was a dog and a bird was a bird. even if the earlir genisis cells per group do not mirror the currently evolved form, the basic gene set is identifiable.
i believe in order for science to understand evolution, they need to connect the links per genere, and not try to link it to the earlist single cell conceivable in thier minds, when it is more probable that when life began it was many varius single cells that found unison in different ways that became what is.
i dont beleive that understanding evolution will explain mankinds existance. i beleive that in order to understand the reason of man existing, you have to define existance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Fosdick, posted 12-11-2007 12:46 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 12-23-2007 12:02 AM tesla has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 50 of 54 (442907)
12-23-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by tesla
12-22-2007 10:34 PM


Re: evolution is real.
but from all evidence, dog species came from diffrent dog species starts, and bird, bird species starts, and monkey, still yet, monkey starts. and man perhapts, their own starting seed.
Really?
Then how do you explain all of these transitional fossils? Were they all simply "starts" of species that just happened to appear to be transitional between other species, but went extinct?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by tesla, posted 12-22-2007 10:34 PM tesla has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 54 (442945)
12-23-2007 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Volunteer
12-22-2007 8:07 PM


Re: A basic question.
It is difficult for me to enter a discussion of this nature until someone answers a basic question and I think you may be the person who can do it. Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics correct or not?
I'm not sure of the relevance to the topic, or why I might be the person to answer the question. What I will say is that the second law is a description of how energy works that has been thoroughly tested and no known exception to it exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Volunteer, posted 12-22-2007 8:07 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 52 of 54 (442950)
12-23-2007 7:45 AM


My Surmise on Volunteer
Volunteer was asking the same question about whether the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct over at the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon thread. He received answers, and also suggestions that he was off-topic and should find the right thread. So he has come to this thread where 2LOT is also off-topic and has asked the exact same question.
I think Volunteer is either an honest and scientifically extremely naive innocent or a troll. Whatever the case, my suggestion for the time being is to just suggest to him that he find a thread where he'd be on topic. Doing a quick search, he could try one of these two threads that are still open:
Or he could propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 12:51 PM Percy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 54 (443010)
12-23-2007 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Percy
12-23-2007 7:45 AM


Re: My Surmise on Volunteer
Ten days or so ago, in Message 22 I first pointed that out and gave him a list of threads on the subject.
It is pretty obvious that volunteer is not capable of reading, following directions or understanding.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Percy, posted 12-23-2007 7:45 AM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 54 (443016)
12-23-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Volunteer
12-22-2007 8:07 PM


Re: A basic question.
It is difficult for me to enter a discussion of this nature until someone answers a basic question and I think you may be the person who can do it. Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics correct or not?
There is actually a more basic question that you should have asked someone first, namely: "What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics"?
Find out here.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Volunteer, posted 12-22-2007 8:07 PM Volunteer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024