Entropy contradict Evolution

Just since I'm bored, I'll state the obvious.

Hadeka said:
The amount of information and the complexity of our universe perpetually decreases instead of increasing. According to evolutionary theory, life on earth progresses from simple to complex and never vice versa. Everything becomes more and more organized and entropy constantly decreases.

Thus, evolution contradicts both laws of thermodynamics.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is by itself alone sufficient to refute evolutionary theories.
Click to expand...

Allow me to make this nice and clear.

Entropy of the Earth is decreasing. The Earth isn't an isolated system. The entropy of the universe is increasing. The Earth grows more complex and organized, but the universe doesn't. The Earth isn't an isolated system.

Did you get that? Whoops, maybe you missed me. Allow me to repeat, so that you don't forget.

The Earth isn't an isolated system.
The Earth isn't an isolated system.
The Earth isn't an isolated system.
The Earth isn't an isolated system.
The Earth isn't an isolated system.

Odd how so many people ignore that when they go on with their not-even-pseudoscience drivel about how the second law of thermodynamics "contradicts" evolution.

"Creationism" and "intelligent design" have been shot down in all academic circles. Evolution has been supported in all academic circles. The only people who disagree are people who are uneducated.

Is it a wonder that the less the average level of education in an area, the more likely the people there are to accept "creationism" and "intelligent design" than evolution? Doubt this? Compare the numbers, honey. :)
 
These are quotes that I found concerning fossil records.

"All the larger groups of animals, e.g. fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals seem to have appeared suddenly on the earth, spreading themselves, so to speak, in an explosive manner in their various shapes and forms. Nowhere is one able to observe or prove the transition of one species into another, variation only being possible within the species themselves" Evolutionist, Max Westenhofer as quoted in Dewar's More Difficulties, p. 94

"The evidence of Geology today is that species seem to come into existence suddenly and in full perfection, remain substantially unchanged during the terms of their existence, and pass away in full perfection. Other species take their place, apparently by substitution, not by transmutation" Geologist, Joseph Le Conte

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
Charles Robert Darwin, The Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1st edition reprint. Avenel Books

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology (study of fossils). In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors, it appears all at once and fully formed."
Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Mentioned in one of his regular columns in Natural History Magazine (1977) and also in The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

"different species usually appear and disappear from the record without showing the transitions that Darwin postulated -- we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- We have fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwins' time" Dr. David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Field Museum Natural History Bulletin 50:22- 29

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" Dr. David B. Kitts, Paleontologist

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M. Stanley

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type." Bowler, 'Evolution: The History of an Idea', 1984, p. 187
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts about these quotes?
 
The process of speciation is thought to occur mainly in small "founder" populations which are geographically isolated. When it occurs, it occurs quite rapidly, in geological terms. This probably accounts for the apparent paucity of intermediate fossils in the fossil record. Fossilisation is a very rare occurence.

Stephen J. Gould, who you quoted, jointly proposed an evolutionary explanation known as punctuated equilibrium. This is arguably a slight modification of the theory of evolution, but only in terms of specific processes, not the basics of the theory. Gould was, of course, a dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist.
 
786 said:
In the article you presented. In the third paragraph it says.
"Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible."
Just as I said, doesn't add anything.
Click to expand...
You're not reading carefully enough. Point mutations do not add information, which is what they were talking about in that sentence. The article goes on to talk about other mechanisms such as transpons and polyploidy," Another area of research involves polyploidy. Through the process of polyploidy, the total number of chromosomes can double, or a single chromosome can duplicate itself."

This type of selective quotation is typical of these types of arguments.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is an example of Natural Selection. I thought we already agreed that Natural Selection doesn't add anything. That was your argument, wasn't it?

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation.
Click to expand...
While bacteria do have several ways of building resistance, they also adapt through mutation. The good Dr. is simply ignoring this fact. As I mentioned earlier, it has been found that environmental changes actually result in an increased rate of mutation.

"We demonstrate that subsequent to a shift in environmental conditions, there will be relatively long periods of time during which the mutator subpopulation can produce a beneficial mutation before the ancestral subpopulations are eliminated. If the beneficial mutation arises early enough, the overall frequency of mutators will climb to a point higher than when the process began. The probability of producing a subsequent beneficial mutation will then also increase. In this manner, mutators can increase in frequency over successive selective sweeps. We discuss the implications and predictions of these theoretical results in relation to antibiotic resistance and the evolution of mutation rates."

PMID: 12871898 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

As we can see that this was already in the genome. So really Mutation DID NOT add any new information to the DNA. This is only gene duplication. which can be considered as Mutation, because the DNA was changed because of duplication of genes. But as you can see that the original gene was already present, thus we can conclude that NO NEW information was added to the DNA. It only DUPLICATED the original gene.
Click to expand...
Ah, but it did. There are now more copies of the gene than there were originally, subsequently the organism is now more resistant to pesticides.

Here's another example:

"Previous work showed that insecticide resistance in Drosophila melanogaster is correlated with the insertion of an Accord-like element into the 5' region of the cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Here, we study the distribution of the Accord-like element in 673 recently collected D. melanogaster lines from 34 world-wide populations. We also examine the extent of microsatellite variability along a 180-kilobase (kb) genomic region of chromosome II encompassing the resistance gene. We confirm a 100% correlation of the Accord insertion with insecticide resistance and a significant reduction in variability extending at least 20 kb downstream of the Cyp6g1 gene. The frequency of the Accord insertion differs significantly between East African (32-55%) and nonAfrican (85-100%) populations. This pattern is consistent with a selective sweep driving the Accord insertion close to fixation in nonAfrican populations as a result of the insecticide resistance phenotype it confers. This study confirms that hitchhiking mapping can be used to identify beneficial mutations in natural populations. Copyright 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd"

PMID: 15245421 [PubMed - in process]

~Raithere
 
786,

I don't know about the others but I for one have about had it with your know it all attitude which is actually based on nothing more than preconcieved creationists concepts and is being peddeled as fact using "Mis-Quotes", distorted facts and outright fraud. NOt only was your film deliberately hoaxed to make it appear R.Dawkins couldn't answer the question - which he could and did - but you have just listed several "Media" versions of information which is out of context of the true thoughts of some very highly recognized scientists.

Below are other quotes by these fellows. None of your comments above alters the fact that they were and are still firm believers in evolution and the signifigance of the points you want to emphasize are exagerated.

****************************************************
Julian Huxley - Renowned Biologist "(5) an evolutionary view of human destiny, with humankind recognized as the chief instrument of further evolution, as against all theological, magical, fatalistic or hedonistic views of destiny. "

E. Mayr - Renowned Biologist: "There are freshwater fish, the cichlids, in Lake Victoria that produce new species at an incredibly high rate. In 12,000 years, there have been 500 species created. Then, you have things like the horseshoe crab, which hasn't changed in 200 million years. The question is still: Why does one group diversify so rapidly and another stays constant for hundreds of millions of years? "

T. Dobzansky - Renowned Biologist: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense. Except in the Light of Evolution"

M. Ruse - NON Biologists - Unqualified author writes "A “cowardly flabbiness of the intellect afflicts otherwise rational people” when it comes to confronting the faults of religion. Thus noted Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University zoologist and passionate advocate of evolutionary theory, berating the rest of us for failing to realize that not only can one be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist,” but that the “universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

The "us" above identifies himself

F.J.Ayala - Renowned Biologist "Another major research effort focuses on the population structure and evolution of parasitic protozoa, such as malaria and Chagas’. We have shown that the four species of Plasmodium that cause human malaria diverged many million years ago; they became human parasites independently, by lateral transfer from other hosts. However, the world populations of P. falciparum, the agent of malignant malaria, originated from a single individual only a few thousand years ago. We have shown that P. falciparum parasites are genetically virtually identical, except for the genes responding to the human immune system or to antimalarial drugs."

C.H.Waddington - Geneticists - "It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next."

MORE CREATIONISTS FRAUD


H.J.Muller - Geneticists - Pulitzer Prize.

The Quote
Hermann Muller (1890-1967) is justly regarded as the father of radiation genetics. He is famous for showing that radiation can increase mutation rates, which he proved in 1926 with studies of fruit flies; work for which he eventually won a Nobel prize in 1946.

Muller is widely cited in the creationism/evolution debate, by both sides. One common quote, however, is both inaccurate and misleading.

The quote appears widely on creationist web sites in the following form:

It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidently introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad.

-- H.J. Muller,
"How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution",
in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331

The last sentence is sometimes emphasized in bold face type or capitals. However, that sentence simply does not appear anywhere in the cited reference. The correct context is as follows:

It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation. According to the conception of evolution based on the studies of modern genetics, the whole organism has its basis in its genes. Of these there are thousands of different kinds, interacting with great nicety in the production and maintenance of the complicated organization of the given type of organism. Accordingly, by the mutation of one of these genes or another, in one way or another, any component structure or function, and in many cases combinations of these components, may become diversely altered. Yet in all except very rare cases the change will be disadvantageous, involving an impairment of function.

It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural mutation. This could take place only because of the Darwinian principle of natural selection, applying to the genes. That is, on the rare occasions when an accidental mutation did happen to effect an advantageous change, the resultant individual, just because it was aided by that mutation, tended to multiply more than the others.

-- H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution",
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
Volume 11, number 9, Nov 1955, pp 329-338 and 352 (extract from page 331)
The additional sentence added to the quote by creationists is a direct conflict with Muller's own words, which make explicit reference to rare occasions when an advantageous mutation occurs, and goes on to explain that accumulation of these rare advantageous mutations leads to the superbly interadapted genes of the present day.

Muller believed that that the rare but non-zero occurrence of advantageous mutations was a necessary consequence of the effects of Darwinian selection. *****************************************************

DO YOU AND CREATIONISTS ALL BELIEVE THAT FRAUD AND DISTORTION MAKES YOUR GOD REAL?
 
Really if that is all true, then I had no idea of it. If it is then I am really sorry. But I really, honestly had no Idea.
 
This just shows that you have to be wary of Creationist sources. These people have an agenda, and they'll twist the facts and quote out of context, or even misquote, scientists to make their points.

There is no Creation Science. None of these people do research of their own. They spend all their time trying to knock down real science. Funnily enough, they have no scientific evidence at all that their religious ideas of Creation are correct, either.
 
Its pretty well known the fossil record has gaps, and creationists try to exploit them to their own agenda as its the only thing that might support their arguement, there will come a time when the gaps are filled and no arguement is left, i just hope it comes soon.
 
786,

You're doing a cracking job.
Keep on keeping on.
You have these guys on the run, and they are trying every trick (evolutionalist logic) in the book to discredit you character (as that is their only hope), but it only reveals their crumbling arguments.
Good video.

Jan Arden.
 
Look at the simple things. It is based on Chance. Their is also a CHANCE that there were NO BENEFICIAL Mutations at ALL. When we are talking about chances than anything is possible. The theory has no steady ground, because it is based on CHANCE. And CHANCE is on very, very, very SHAKY ground. Lets list the problems with the theory.

1. Doesn't give us an answer to the question, how life began? (first cell)
2. The transition of Specie to different Specie depend on Mutation. And Mutation is Based on CHANCE. Thus the concept of evolving into a different specie depends of CHANCE. CHANCE of Beneficial variations.
3. Gaps in Fossil Records (HUGE GAPS)
4. Latest discoveries on Fossils are starting to refute with the part about Apes to Human part of the theory.
5. Extremely hard for Benficial Mutation to NATURALLY occur.
6. Fossil Record shows suddenly abrupting animals, not transitional animals.
7. Their is a CHANCE that their were NO Beneficial Mutations.
8. Their is also a CHANCE that their weren't ENOUGH Beneficial Mutations.
10. When a theory stands on CHANCE, then it has a HUGE CHANCE of being FALSE.

There maybe more, I can't think of them now.
 
786

You are merely repeating yourself with the same tired arguments without understanding what is being explained to you. Or you're simply ignoring those explanations.

Jan says you're doing a 'cracking job.'

In that I agree, you're both cracking me up.
 
786, why are you so obsessed with the word 'chance'? Yeah, the odds of any given animal experiencing a beneficial mutation are small, but it's practically inevitable that many beneficial mutations will occur in a large population.

There is a chance that each new animal in a generation will have a beneficial mutation. When you multiply the odds of any given animal having a beneficial mutation by the number of animals in the population, that chance rapidly approaches certainty.
 
(Q) said:
786

You are merely repeating yourself with the same tired arguments without understanding what is being explained to you. Or you're simply ignoring those explanations.

Jan says you're doing a 'cracking job.'

In that I agree, you're both cracking me up.
Click to expand...

Do you DISAGREE that the WHOLE theory of evolving one specie to another depends on CHANCE?

Why I am emphasizing CHANCE? Because their are RARELY any Natural Benifcial Mutations.

You are believing in a theory which has a RARE CHANCE of being true.
 
Nasor said:
786, why are you so obsessed with the word 'chance'? Yeah, the odds of any given animal experiencing a beneficial mutation are small, but it's practically inevitable that many beneficial mutations will occur in a large population.

There is a chance that each new animal in a generation will have a beneficial mutation. When you multiply the odds of any given animal having a beneficial mutation by the number of animals in the population, that chance rapidly approaches certainty.
Click to expand...

You are simply thinking that there has to be at least one Beneficial Mutation. There are RARELY any "natural" BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS in ANY GENERATION.
 
It doesn't mean that "fit" WILL have a beneficial mutation.
Natural Selection is NOT a CONSIOUS mechansim that picks out animals. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

anyways selection a 'fit' animal doesn't mean beneficial mutation. You think you put someone in shape, inside a nuclear bomb radiation then it is going to be beneficial for him NO!

Mutation is random, meaning CHANCED. It DOESN"T have ANY CERTAINTY. Natural Selection cannot control Mutation. Natural Selectio cannot cause beneficial Mutation. Mutation cannot be controled. It is CHANCED
 
Natural Selection doesn't make beneficial Mutation. So there is no increase in the chance of a beneficial mutation, because of Natural Selection. Because Natural Selection cannot control Mutations.
 
786 said:
You are simply thinking that there has to be at least one Beneficial Mutation. There are RARELY any "natural" BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS in ANY GENERATION.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, in another thread yesterday you said that the odds of any given gene undergoing a beneficial mutation are about one in a million to one in ten thousand per generation. Since most animals have tens of thousands of genes, and there are many thousands or millions of individuals in each generation, that would mean that there would be many beneficial mutations in each generation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top