A challenge for the anti-evolution crowd

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RichW9090

Evolutionist
Registered Senior Member
"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." (OOS, 6th Edition, 1872) - Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)

This Forum is new to me, so I'd like to make an offer here I've made in several dozen Forums on the Internet over they 15 or more years I've been active.

Creationists and ID proponents constantly tell us that evolution is impossible and is not a valid theory. They deny all the classic and well evidenced examples of evolution which science has produced, especially from the fossil record, my specialty.

Take any group of modern mammals you wish - horses, whales, cats, dogs, giraffes and so forth, and let's discuss the nature of the evidence for the evolution of those animals. We can discuss it fossil by fossil, and the Creationist or ID proponent can show me where my interpretations of the fossil record are incorrect, and, more important, what their better explanation of the fossil record would be.

Any takers?

Rich
 
Try the opposite.. try making a 3D model of a creature that doesn't look evolved from nature. I've watched a lot of sci-fi films like Avatar, and most creatures look Earth-like. Perhaps we have too many samples that we can fit to almost anything? You get the odd one like Alien that looks original.. but not easy to do.
 
Here is an example that came to me last night that has an implication for evolution, but does not necessarily support creationism. Picture a small piece of wood. We burn it in the presence of oxygen to make fire. The products of combustion are CO2 and H2O. The energy value of the wood lowers and entropy increases.

Next, we take an identical piece of wood, with the same energy value and give it to a termite to eat. There is also an oxidation of the wood with the same products, CO2 and H2O. If we assume his digestive efficiency is 75%, to use a number, the final entropy of the oxidation of the wood falls by 75% compared to first example. The reason being life is able to retrieve the waste energy of wood to fire, and turn it into biological work.

The direction of termite is opposite the normal direction of entropy. Without life, entropy will increase to the max like in example one. If evolution is based on random genrtic processes how can life, as it evolves, push net entropy in the opposite direction as innamate matter; retrieve waste heat for work?

The normal argument is life increases entropy, which it does. But this argument never normalizes this entropy against an inanimate standard like the piece of wood, to show the relative entropy is decreasing.
 
wellwisher said:
The direction of termite is opposite the normal direction of entropy. Without life, entropy will increase to the max like in example one.
Click to expand...

The same could be said about burning gasoline in the open or in an automobile.

If evolution is based on random genrtic processes how can life, as it evolves, push net entropy in the opposite direction as innamate matter; retrieve waste heat for work?
Click to expand...


How does this possibly logicially follow from the first statement? Not to mention that life does not push net entropy in the opposite direction as inanimate matter.

The normal argument is life increases entropy, which it does. But this argument never normalizes this entropy against an inanimate standard like the piece of wood, to show the relative entropy is decreasing.
Click to expand...

First you say life does increase entropy, then you say it does not in the same paragraph. To say that some energy is stored by life in trivially obvious.

None of your entropy arguments in any way falsify evolution, heck, they don't even have anything to do with evolution.
 
It's the old bug-a-boo of the closed system. Local concentrations of energy are permitted; it takes work to make them happen, and that energy may be stored for a short, intermediate or long period of time. The local increase in energy gradients is not a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

But all of this has nothing to do with the challenge I issued - are you Creationists running from it already by trying to change the subject?

Rich
 
wellwisher said:
The normal argument is life increases entropy, which it does.
Click to expand...
The most succinct definition of "life" I have ever seen is "a consistent local reversal of entropy."
But this argument never normalizes this entropy against an inanimate standard like the piece of wood, to show the relative entropy is decreasing.
Click to expand...
The Religious Redneck Retards are generally not well enough educated to understand what you just said, so the argument never comes up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich,

Take any group of modern mammals you wish - horses, whales, cats, dogs, giraffes and so forth, and let's discuss the nature of the evidence for the evolution of those animals. We can discuss it fossil by fossil, and the Creationist or ID proponent can show me where my interpretations of the fossil record are incorrect, and, more important, what their better explanation of the fossil record would be.
Click to expand...

Have you got any information which goes beyond any argument that molecule to man evolution took place?

jan.
 
Mod note: Right, I’ve been on holiday and haven’t been able to monitor this thread until now.

Challenges like this rarely end well. 99% of the time they degenerate into ridiculous arguments and insults; this one has already started to veer off track. I don’t have high hopes that this thread will last.

Please try to address the relevant science relating to the opening post. I will be strict in deleting or moving posts that do not do this in an effort to make this thread work. I have already deleted a number of off-topic posts (including some sniping and goading) and more adjustments are likely to come. If the thread goes pear-shaped I’ll close it and move it from B&G to another sub-forum.


Edit: I’ve done some additional moderation. Posts relating to the act of debating creationists have been moved to a split thread (“debating creationists”). Whilst interesting they don’t address the scientific question posed in the opening post.

Edit: A series of woefully uneducated evolution denial posts from matthew809 (and associated replies) were moved to the Denial of Evolution IV thread. Again, if you want to post in this thread, please scientifically address the opening post.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Hercules.

For Jan: Yes, I believe I have. I know the fossil record of these animals quite well, and it is that fossil record I'd like to discuss. I won't be talking about "molecules to man" - that is just an attempt to sidetrack the discussion to abiogenesis. Instead, I will trace the fossil record backwards in time to discuss the origin and evolution of whatever group someone wishes to discuss. Creationists constantly claim the evolutionary biologists are not interpreting the fossils correctly. I simply wish to discuss those interpretations, and have a Creationist or ID proponent show me in what ways my interpretations are mistaken, and, more importantly, in what better way they might interpret those same fossils.

And no, such a request has not yet ever yielded a meaningful discussion. But I am the eternal optimist.

Rich
 
Welcome to the forum RichW9090.

The origins of the horse remain debatable in scientific circles.

http://www.equest4truth.com/HorseEvolution.html

Do you have any expertise that you are willing to share on this topic? I am an avid horsewoman, regardless of their debatable origins, and I am always interested in the latest thinking on this matter.
 
Hi, Sheh, you found a good example of anti-evolutionary argument that actually tries to exploit the evidence.

I read a brand new college biology text last year and was impressed by the beautiful displays of information to supplement the text. One very nice piece displayed the fossils and renderings of these animals that show the possible evolutionary trail from Eohippus to Equus. One thing about the text that was done quite well was to caution that there are unknown and as-yet undiscovered branches, and the place for Eohippus is fuzzy. And I notice the Wiki author on this is quick to point out it's not assumed to be a straight-line succession.

So that raises a very good point about the basis for challenging evolution from a creationist who draws from the existing debates.

To this I would argue that regardless of the uncertainty of the number of unaccounted branches in succession, the very fact that these creatures are laid down in successive layers, framed by the huge environmental changes from the Eocene to the Pleistocene, is part of the puzzle that Creationism can not hope to answer, particularly the folks who profess strict catastrophism. So, if I were one of them, I wouldn't go so far as associating "horse manure" with the curriculum, which I found to be brilliant, or holding issues up as a trophies, instead of trying to understand them.

Their argument would advance the cause of Creationism if it immediately embraced the existence of geologic epochs, and took from that a palliative understanding, one that mediates between the fables and the evidence. For example, how hard is it to simply conclude that creation is taking billions of years to reveal itself, which is not far from Darwin's first impressions at Galapagos as he himself went through some version of that process.

Now if we can just find any more takers.....
 
Last edited:
RichW9090 said:
Thanks, Hercules.

For Jan: Yes, I believe I have. I know the fossil record of these animals quite well, and it is that fossil record I'd like to discuss. I won't be talking about "molecules to man" - that is just an attempt to sidetrack the discussion to abiogenesis. Instead, I will trace the fossil record backwards in time to discuss the origin and evolution of whatever group someone wishes to discuss. Creationists constantly claim the evolutionary biologists are not interpreting the fossils correctly. I simply wish to discuss those interpretations, and have a Creationist or ID proponent show me in what ways my interpretations are mistaken, and, more importantly, in what better way they might interpret those same fossils.

And no, such a request has not yet ever yielded a meaningful discussion. But I am the eternal optimist.

Rich
Click to expand...


Okay I'll just cut to the chase.
I assume you are aware of the book ''Forbidden Archeology'', and the finds therein. The contradictions are too numerous to point out here.
So I'll just ask straight out. What is your opinion of it?


jan.
 
@Jan --

Given that we're discussing the fossil record I hardly think that a crank archeology book is an "on topic" discussion.
 
Mod note:

More edits – 21 posts containing a mixture of the usual evolution denial guff has been moved to the appropriate quarantine thread.

As I predicted, it isn’t possible to have a thread like this. The scientific discussion immediately gives way to unsupported unscientific creationism. (I mean, really, evolutionary science is driven purely by scientists’ egos? :rolleyes:) It seems no one is capable of scientifically addressing the request in the opening post. If someone feels that they can do so, and wishes to do so, then send me a message and I’ll consider re-opening the thread. Jan?

Alternatively, if any members want to debate an evolutionary biology topic, I suggest you consider a formal debate in the Formal Debates subforum. That way a proper discussion can be had without the continual off-topic interjections.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top