|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Truth About Evolution and Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The empirical evidence proves that the big bang occures 13.7 billion years ago and life began 3.5 billion years ago as bacteria. It then evolved into chimps.
Humans are embodies spirits, not because of empirical evidence, but because humans are rational animals. However, the bodies of humans evolved from animals. Body and soul are the metaphysical categories of form and matter. Natural selection and facilitate variation are theories that attempt to explain evolutiion. Intelligent design is not a theory, but pseudo-science. Natural selection certainly explains why species are adapted to their environment, so it has scientific validity. The idea that natural selection explains the complexity of life is propagated by anti-religious fanatics and intelligent design advocates. Intelligent desing advocates promote this idea by not quoting mainstream biologists in explaining the limitations of Darwinism. They do this to promote themselves, I suppose. My video and book reviews relies on mainstream biologists to explain evolutionary biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Intelligent design is pseudo-science. Any quote that criticizes intelligent design and considers it an alternative to science is irrational. I'm sure your references, unless they are crackpots like Dawkins, do not say natural selection explains the complexity of life. Your quote only mentions that there is a "robust" model.
Intelligent design advocates say there is a "controversy" about evolution. There is no controversy. There used to be a controversey about the "big bang." It was true that some physicists were more in favor of it than others. But they all acknowledged that the final determination would be made by observations. When the background radiation was discovered, all accepted the truth of it. The idea that there can be a disagreement among scientists about science is inconsistent with a scientific attitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I can't understand the relevance of the probability of a bond forming? If you have two amino acids A and B, there are tw possible combinations AB and BA. The probability of getting AB is 50%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
We are talking about the complexity of a system made up of particles. If a poker is put in a fire place, one end is hot and the other end is cold. Heat flows from the hot end to the cold until the temperature is constant. The system of particles became less complex. There was less knowledge about the kinetic energy of the molecules in the poker after the temperature became uniform.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I quote Dawkins saying this in my review of his latest book. My review was published in Orthodoxy.Today.com and Catholic Truth. A link to it is http://www.dkroemer.com/page81/page81.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The quesiton is not what I am saying, it is what Richard Dawkins is saying. He says natural selection + mutation + genetic drift + facilitate variation explains the complexity of living organisms. He says that, not always, but when he is interested in misleading non-biologists, that the second law of thermodynamics is not inconsistent with Darwinism. He says the argument from the second law is used only by creationists and is not part of the science of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The Earth and sun taken together is a closed system, so the second law applies.
Also, any local increases in entropy are subject to the laws of probability. It is possible, for example, for the gas molecules in a container to move to one side of the container, turning the other side into a vacuum. But this is highly improbable. The word "complexity" isn't really relevant. What is relevant is the calculations of probability. The different ways of arranging N objects is N factorial. The probability of getting a particular arrangement is 1/N!. The bell-shaped curve, which describes the velocities of molecules in a gas, is derived from Stirling's approximaiont: Log N! = N log N. With this in mind, the probability of getting a protein from a soup of amino acids is the reciprical of 20600. As I have said in other posts and as has been explained on my YouTube video with quotes from mainstream biologists and biology textbooks, this calculation is crude. It does not take into consideration natural selection and facilitated variation. There are ways to take these biological mechanisms into consideration, but no biologist/mathematician has done this. The reason is that this number relates only to the primary structure of proteins. Evolution involves more than this. It involves the secondary, tertiary, and quadernary structure of proteins, molecular machinery made out of dozens of proteins, and developmental biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I explain why Darwinism is inconsistent with the second law of thermodyamics in post # 326.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Dear PhD in Physics:
What is wrong with my argument? Do you agree that there is no explanation for the big bang, the origen of life, and common descent? Isn't true that the problem with explaining the evolution of life from random mutations comes from of the second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't the second law state that it is impossible to get four perfect bridge hands in 13 billion years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
If the molecules of a gas in a container move to one side, that side may or may not heat up. What if all the low kinetic energy molecules move to one side of the container? I don't know about the temperature. There is no interaction with an outside system in this thought experiment. Such a movement of gas molecules violates the second law of thermodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The chance of getting four perfect bridge hands is 52 factorial. If everyone on Earth played bridge for 3.5 billion years, the chance of getting a perfect bridge hand is less than 0.0000000001 percent. This is the kind of calculation you have to understand in order to do statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. This is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.
Darwinists--not trained biologists-- say evolution comes about because of chemicals jumping around chemically. Just like a deck of cards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Yes, you increased the knowledge of the location of the cards. When you shuffle the deck, there will be less knowledge, less order or more entropy. If you claim that upon shuffling the deck for a few years many thousands of times a second by a computer that you got back the original order you started with, you would be violating the second law of thermodynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Dawkins said:
"When creationists say, as they frequently do, that the theory of evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are telling us no more than that they don’t understand the Second Law (we already knew that they don’t understand evolution). There is no contraction, because of the sun!energy from the sun powers life, to coax and stretch the laws of physics and chemistry to evolve prodigious feats of complexity, diversity , beauty, and an uncanny illusion of statistical improbability and deliberate designNatural selection is an improbability pump: a process that generates the statistically improbable. It systematically seizes the minority of random changes that have what it takes to survive, and accumulates them, step by tiny step over unimaginable timescales, until evolution eventually climbs mountains of improbability and diversity, peaks whose height and range seem to know no limit, the metaphorical mountain that I have called ‘Mount Improbable’Life evolves greater complexity only because natural selection drives it locally away from the statistically probable towards the improbable. (p. 415 of the Greatest Show on Earth) Notice that he says the energy of the sun generated "improbability." Anyone who understands the second law knows that it was the decrease in entropy of the sun that caused the entropy of living organisms to increase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Your quotes prove what I am saying. The author is discussing the causes or mechanisms of evolution. At no time does he say, "We have explained common descent, not just the adaptation of species to their environment."
If you read my review of Dawkins book and the Gerhart-Kirschner book, you will see that serious biologists always mention "adaptation" and do not mention the complexity of life. Dawkins, as my review shows, talks out of both sides of his mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The following is a quote from a biology textbook used by 65% of biology majors in the U. S. Notice that Campbell treats a protein just like a deck of cards. Nowhere in his book does he suggest Darwinism explains the existence of proteins.
"Each of the four identical polypeptide chains that together make up transthyretin is composed of 127 amino acidsThe primary structure is like the order of letters in a very long word. If left to chance, there would be 20127 different ways of making a polypeptide chain 127 amino acids long." (page 82, Biology by Campbell and Reece)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024