Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[origin]

Since an increase in entropy will need a source to energy to occur, the rebound of the water chain, is endothermic and will draw in energy.

This statement shows again that you do not know what entropy is. Your statement is like saying temperature needs a source of heat - it makes no sense.

You think entropy is the mysterious thing that life can reverse. That is nonsense.

Entropy increases or decreases just like temperature increases and decreases. Cooling something does not reverse temperature, it just decreases the temperature. For instance if you look at a steam system the entropy is increasing or decreasing depending on the point in the cycle that you are. You should find a chemical engineer and he could help you out on these concepts.

It is true that every process increases the entropy of the universe. However, in open systems like the earth, life, the solar system, steam systems or your refrigerator the entropy increases or decreases in different areas of those systems.

 

[davewhite04]

Invention requires an open mind and the willingness to follow all hunches to their logical conclusion. Many paths will be duds. Some will be reasonable and will only need resources or further development to become one of the many options allowed by science. One has to argue from all points of view to eliminate possibilities and learn from mistakes. As time goes on, that which withstood the test of time, remains, without wasting resources. I am starting to repeat myself instead of create new because the base set is crystalizing.

Hydrogen bonding within water, as well as within organics like protein, RNA and DNA , all of which evolved within water, are similar to binary switches that can shift between two types of bonding states; ionic and covalent. These two bonding states are separated by a small activation energy hill so are distinct but easy to switch back and forth. These two states contain potential differences due to differences in enthalpy, entropy, volume and pressure. The interaction of water with the organics causes the water to reflect an extended version of the organic moiety, based on equilibrium considerations. You tweak the organics the water reflects this and if you tweak the water the organics see this....

Are you talking about Abiogenesis(or something similar) or evolution?

 

[Enoc]

Are you talking about Abiogenesis(or something similar) or evolution?

I think he is talking about biochemistry in general.

We all know that water is important for all life and also plays an important role in the humanity body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_water

 

[leopold]

This entire thread is about your claim that Ayala said that evolution doesn't occur.

strawman.
that's what you would LIKE for it to be about.
actually it's about the question of why didn't science ever correct this alleged mistake.

Have you suddenly changed your mind, now?

no.

Do you admit, then, that Ayala is a supporter of the theory of evolution, after all?

you know, i was banned for saying the following to hercules rockefellar, but:
"i have no idea what ayala does or doesn't think."
all i know is what was printed in a respected source.
even after being blasted by letters, science STILL hasn't corrected said article.
could it be that science is just plain tired of playing the retraction game?

I'm sorry, leopold, but having a baby tantrum won't help your case. I suggest you use your 3 days off to think carefully about your behaviour here. Then, when you come back I think an apology to all members of the forum would be appropriate, don't you?

yeah, well i apologize.

 

[leopold]

I feel somewhat responsible, . . .

huh?
why?
you are 0% responsible for my posts randwolf.
i type these words, not you.

 

[leopold]

Note: leopold's ban on the ban list says 31 days. However, 60 of his current infraction points will expire in 3 days time, meaning he can return then. He will then have 30 active infraction points. 50 means an automatic ban.

aww, now that was perfect.
i miss you too !

 

[leopold]

I don't think he's promoting a saltational process. When pressed, he says he has no idea how to explain the diversity of life.

i was taught in school it was by a slow gradual process.
this article says that isn't the case.
if the scientists don't know, then how can you expect me to know?
i can give you some opinions, that's about it.

But I think leopold is more of a "God created all the animals in 1 day of Creation" kind of guy.

i don't think you "believe", i think you are convinced.
and you would be wrong.
no one, anywhere, at any time, has ever explained to me how a god could make this happen.
the implications of a god are absurd.
yes indeed, believe in me or burn forever ! !
yeah, well, YOU might want to worship something like that, but I don't.

He is only banned for 3 days. He'll be able to return tomorrow.

here's a smootch for your kindness . . .
* smootch *
alright, enough of that.

 

[Rav]

i was taught in school it was by a slow gradual process.
this article says that isn't the case.
if the scientists don't know, then how can you expect me to know?

You've been corrected on this nonsense endlessly. Again, in a nutshell, all evolutionary changes are gradual. Some changes occur over millions of years, and some over mere thousands of years. Some slowly, some abruptly in comparison. But gradualism is always a feature of evolution.

This issue originally emerged in the context of discussion related to Punctuated Equilibrium and was actually put to bed by the champion of that theory, Stephen Jay Gould, who recognized that a significant misunderstanding had occurred. From Wikipedia:

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".

Can someone please explain to me how keeping this leopold fellow around actually serves any reasonable purpose anymore? All he does is spout nonsense while conveniently forgetting that he has been definitively corrected on it multiple times before. I understand that some of you might like to practice your skills from time to time in order to stay sharp, but leopold hardly presents anything beyond the challenge of resisting one's baser instincts. If you want to hone your skills I would seek out people who offer arguments that actually force you to do some real thinking

 

[exchemist]

You've been corrected on this nonsense endlessly. Again, in a nutshell, all evolutionary changes are gradual. Some changes occur over millions of years, and some over mere thousands of years. Some slowly, some abruptly in comparison. But gradualism is always a feature of evolution.

This issue originally emerged in the context of discussion related to Punctuated Equilibrium and was actually put to bed by the champion of that theory, Stephen Jay Gould, who recognized that a significant misunderstanding had occurred. From Wikipedia:

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".

Can someone please explain to me how keeping this leopold fellow around actually serves any reasonable purpose anymore? All he does is spout nonsense while conveniently forgetting that he has been definitively corrected on it multiple times before. I understand that some of you might like to practice your skills from time to time in order to stay sharp, but leopold hardly presents anything beyond the challenge of resisting one's baser instincts. If you want to hone your skills I would seek out people who offer arguments that actually force you to do some real thinking

Leopold has a bee in his bonnet about this one obscure argument, probably due to whatever these apparent, but notoriously unstated, beliefs of his are that cause him to deny evolution. But on other science topics, he seems to be able talk sense. So I think the key with Leopold is to avoid putting 50p in his slot and then he is fine.

 

[James R]

leopold,

actually it's about the question of why didn't science ever correct this alleged mistake.

Did you read the letters that Science published?

you know, i was banned for saying the following to hercules rockefellar, but:
"i have no idea what ayala does or doesn't think."
all i know is what was printed in a respected source.

Don't tell lies, leopold.

You know what Ayala was quoted as saying by Lewin in Science. You also know what Ayala told NAIG (and which is published there). If you'd bothered to do any extra research at all, you'd also know that Ayala is a dyed-in-the-wool "evolutionist".

If you're still confused, I'll tell you what he thinks, seeing as you place so much value on his authority (which, by the way, is not how science should be done). Ayala thinks evolution occurs by natural selection, just as Darwin said. Ayala is not a Creationist.

even after being blasted by letters, science STILL hasn't corrected said article.

They published the blasting letters.

Could it be that science is just plain tired of playing the retraction game?

What are you claiming that Science retracted?

i was taught in school it was by a slow gradual process.
this article says that isn't the case.

It depends on what you're calling "slow". "Fast" in geological terms is very slow indeed by most other measures. If speciation is evident in fossil strata separated by 100,000 years, say, would you call that fast or slow?

if the scientists don't know, then how can you expect me to know?

Do they say they don't know?

no one, anywhere, at any time, has ever explained to me how a god could make this happen.
the implications of a god are absurd.

If not God, then who is the Creator, leopold? Angels? Pixies? Aliens? Do we live in computer simulation?

If you believe evolution is false, then you must have some alternative in mind. If not, then you should admit that there's no better alternative than evolution, as far as you know.

 

[leopold]

You've been corrected on this nonsense endlessly. Again, in a nutshell, all evolutionary changes are gradual. Some changes occur over millions of years, and some over mere thousands of years. Some slowly, some abruptly in comparison. But gradualism is always a feature of evolution.

yes, that is what i was taught.
this article says differently.
also, no one EVER presented ANY kind of documentation on how long a species takes to "turn into" a completely different genome.
your statement of a length of time has no basis in lab results.

Can someone please explain to me how keeping this leopold fellow around actually serves any reasonable purpose anymore? All he does is spout nonsense while conveniently forgetting that he has been definitively corrected on it multiple times before.

yes, people says it "takes millions of years", but it's nothing but hot air RAV.
we have nothing to go by, not even the record itself.

If you want to hone your skills I would seek out people who offer arguments that actually force you to do some real thinking

well then, maybe YOU can explain why science never corrected said article.

 

[leopold]

Leopold has a bee in his bonnet about this one obscure argument, probably due to whatever these apparent, but notoriously unstated, beliefs of his are that cause him to deny evolution.

strawman.
the letters received by science specifically state how important this conference was

But on other science topics, he seems to be able talk sense.

amazing isn't it?
lewin was treated the same way.
a prolific science writer that became an editor for one the most respected names in science.
then he pens this piece on a conference.
all of a sudden he's the biggest liar since Pinocchio.

So I think the key with Leopold is to avoid putting 50p in his slot and then he is fine.

ad hom.

 

[Rav]

Leopold has a bee in his bonnet about this one obscure argument, probably due to whatever these apparent, but notoriously unstated, beliefs of his are that cause him to deny evolution. But on other science topics, he seems to be able talk sense. So I think the key with Leopold is to avoid putting 50p in his slot and then he is fine.

I get bees in my bonnet all the time. But if I ever act in a manner that even remotely resembles the sort of intellectually dishonest bullshit that we're seeing here, again, I expect someone to permaban me.

 

[Rav]

yes, that is what i was taught.
this article says differently.

Gould himself addressed that. It was simply a misunderstanding that he didn't intend.

well then, maybe YOU can explain why science never corrected said article.

See, we're going around in circles. As such every single point you make, and every single question you ask, can be addressed simply by referring to a previous discussion. For example: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vi.134919/page-35#post-3083382

Finally, I literally can not believe that the following comments of mine in that 2013 thread:

I'm sorry, but it's case closed. This was a cold hard fact before, and doubly so after our efforts here. In fact we've done our job so well that I feel confident in saying that you'll never be able to get away with this bullshit ever again. In other words, this is almost certainly the last thread in which you get to be this particular sort of moron, so enjoy it.

turned out to be false. Really.

 

[exchemist]

strawman.
the letters received by science specifically state how important this conference was

amazing isn't it?
lewin was treated the same way.
a prolific science writer that became an editor for one the most respected names in science.
then he pens this piece on a conference.
all of a sudden he's the biggest liar since Pinocchio.

ad hom.

Leopold it may be ad hom but if so it was only due to replying to a question about you from someone else. If you read it carefully, you might notice it is in fact a sort of qualified defence of your continued presence on this forum.

….even though you are a bit bonkers on this topic……….

 

[Billy T]

... no one EVER presented ANY kind of documentation on how long a species takes to "turn into" a completely different genome. ...

The least known time, for a mammal, is 8000 years. I.e. make a new species, not able to have fertile off springs with the sill separately living specie it evolved from in 8000 years.

You either, lie or don't recall or did not read an earlier post of this thread at: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vii-2015.144083/page-15#post-3265128

 

[leopold]

leopold,


Did you read the letters that Science published?

not all of them.
i was more interested in finding one from ayala.

Don't tell lies, leopold.

about what?
what HR did?
will he did it and for the reason i stated, but it was in reference to gould not ayala.

You know what Ayala was quoted as saying by Lewin in Science. You also know what Ayala told NAIG (and which is published there). If you'd bothered to do any extra research at all, you'd also know that Ayala is a dyed-in-the-wool "evolutionist".

okay, now what?

If you're still confused, I'll tell you what he thinks, . . .

you will?
james, this is a very unscientific approach you are taking here.
the best you can hope to do is post some of his select writings on the topic

seeing as you place so much value on his authority (which, by the way, is not how science should be done).

i am placing zero value on ayalas authority or i would accept the NAIG reference.

Ayala thinks evolution occurs by natural selection, just as Darwin said. Ayala is not a Creationist.

he sure didn't feel that way at the conference.

They published the blasting letters.

yes.

What are you claiming that Science retracted?

i am not claiming science retracted anything.
i am claiming science never corrected its alleged mistake.
the letters themselves point out how important this conference was, so you can't use "it was a minor event" or some such.

It depends on what you're calling "slow". "Fast" in geological terms is very slow indeed by most other measures. If speciation is evident in fossil strata separated by 100,000 years, say, would you call that fast or slow?

we aren't talking about speciation.
these gaps represent major changes in genomes, and not at the species level.

Do they say they don't know?

they certainly didn't know when they taught me.
the ideas presented at the conference hasn't been confirmed.
i would call that "not knowing".

If not God, then who is the Creator, leopold?

AAAAAGHGGGGHHHH ! ! ! ! !

Angels?Pixies? Aliens? Do we live in computer simulation?

i honestly don't know james.
the idea of abiogenesis is as absurd as some kind of god in my opinion.
the concept of life may well be out of our league.
BTW, i'm only interested in clearing up this little snafu with ayala.
there is a reason science refuses to do that james, and THEY are the responsible party.

If you believe evolution is false . . .

i am not saying it's false, i'm saying we have a problem with ayala.

If not, then you should admit that there's no better alternative than evolution, as far as you know.

none that i know of, unless you want to get into quantum physics.
the grand unification theory must include life somehow, it seems so anyway.

 

[leopold]

I get bees in my bonnet all the time. But if I ever act in a manner that even remotely resembles the sort of intellectually dishonest bullshit that we're seeing here, again, I expect someone to permaban me.

how am i being intellectually dishonest RAV?
you made the statement so i assume you have something to prove it.

 

[Bells]

There is no problem with Ayala.

How many years and we are still arguing about this absolute BS!

There is no evidence that they have refused to "clear it up". There is nothing to clear up.

If you want to know what Ayala says, then read his books. Read his papers and studies.

And stop ignoring the fact that even the article you keep trying to fall back on to disprove evolution supports evolution.

Stop quote mining from creationist sites.

 

[leopold]

See, we're going around in circles. As such every single point you make, and every single question you ask, can be addressed simply by referring to a previous discussion. For example: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vi.134919/page-35#post-3083382

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vi.134919/page-35#post-3083382
well then, break that circular reasoning RAV and post the issue where it apologizes to all those people lewin misrepresented.
apologizes for those LIES lewin told.