Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Unless something is in a state of equilibrium

You well now that entropy is always increasing disorder even though there may be local pockets that are in equilibrium.

Very wrong. Here’s a question for you:

If you have a cube of ice in a warm room then the ice will melt. Its entropy will have increased. Has the entropy of the room increased, decreased or has it remained in equilibrium?

I’ll give you a clue. It has decreased. Feel free to argue against the second Law as you see fit.

And your ‘local pockets’ would be whole of the solar system (your definition of ‘local pocket’ seems to be different to mine). It is virtually a closed system and so is in equilibrium, disregarding energy exchange between it and the rest of the universe.

Don’t forget to answer the question by the way.

 

[Aloysium]

This thread is an excellent example of people not accepting basic scientific principles and carrying on arguments that are based on incorrect statements. So if you want to be honest, then simply correct what you have stated. I mean, how difficult can it be…?

In keeping with your tradition, we should be talking about us rather than the topic. Unfortunately, I cannot correct a reader’s confusion. We are blessed with only a certain level of cousel by the Holy Spirit, and all I can do is try to present my argument in the clearest fashion I can. Beyond that, those interested in expanding their knowledge will have to open their minds to what lies beyond their understanding and knowledge.

Sticking with the subject at hand, I will re-assert that reality goes far, far beyond the limits of empiricism. If we are to discuss life and especially ourselves we must include those psychological and especially spiritual dimensions which define us more than our physical morphology.

Just as if you wanted to discuss geology and wanted to claim that the planet is 6,000 years old. Further discussion on that basis is futile.

Back to your preferred subject - us, I tried to reduce the word count because people did not appear to be reading my responses. Seeing the confusion it caused I posted a long ( I could have gone further) clarification as to the meaning of the words, how they were being used. From your response, I can now assume I was correct and that you did not read my response to Rossum, nor probably anything except to find fault with something I don’t really get. When you do so, the post is deprived of the context and meaning.

entropy if you insist on it being a constant

Clearly, for anyone willing to understand, entroy was used as a short form for the principle that is stated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that overall the universe is “devolving”. There is an increase in disorganization through random spontaneous reactions, those that are not forced to happen by external energy. Entropy can be thought of as a constant overall process in the universe although the existing order shifts energy from external sources to locally increase the organization of specific structures.

If you want to discuss this, I will be happy to do so.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Evidence is evidence.

Hmmm - some evidence is tainted. many papers remove evidence that does not fit the expectations.

Utterly irrelevant. Any theory can use any evidence it sees fit. Its proponent can accept or reject any evidence for any valid scientific reasoning.

The question still stands. How do we tell which theory is the best at explaining the evidence? The number of papers written? Number of experts in the relevant fields who accept it?

And you must realise that this answer must be valid for all theories.

 

[Bradskii]

Entropy can be thought of as a constant overall process in the universe…

Saying that is it a constant process is most definitely not the same as claiming it to be a constant: ‘Entropy can be said to be a property or constant’.

But glad to see that you have corrected your position.

 

[buffalo]

Any theory can use any evidence it sees fit. Its proponent can accept or reject any evidence for any valid scientific reasoning.

Very subjective.

 

[Aloysium]

So here is the question that @buffalo refuses to answer: Discounting personal preference, by what criteria do you decide which theory is the better one at describing available evidence?

I missed this reply, as you may have missed his reply.

I think what makes a difference is a relationship with God. Without that Light, the most fundamental of all truths, there is only evolution, the random appearance of life seredipitously, if our presence in this vale of tears is something to be valued, resulting in all this activity, as we read, think and write as one individual person in the community of mankind. If all one has to deal with is matter, the correct theory is not going to emerge. How can one think of creation, if one does not believe in the Creator? Evolution or creation, the basic scientific evidence is exactly the same. The fact is that the fundamental forces and constants of nature cannot predict the existence of living beings, and actually should be arguing against that reality. So, to argue for evolution requires more than just having no proof of God’s existence, but rather an active belief in His nonexistence.

 

[Aloysium]

glad to see that you have corrected your position

“Clarified” dude. Seriously, what is your point? Lol.

 

[Aloysium]

this answer must be valid for all theories.

That would be the case if we were just a collection of molecules no different from those that constitute this electronic equipment we are currently using.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Any theory can use any evidence it sees fit. Its proponent can accept or reject any evidence for any valid scientific reasoning.

Very subjective.

Valid scientific reasoning must conform with the scientific method. So no, not subjective. So no, you have still not answered the question in any case.

How do we tell which theory is the best at explaining the evidence? The number of papers written? Number of experts in the relevant fields who accept it? Any idea at all?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So here is the question that @buffalo refuses to answer: Discounting personal preference, by what criteria do you decide which theory is the better one at describing available evidence?

I missed this reply, as you may have missed his reply.

I think what makes a difference is a relationship with God.

So you dermine the validity of a scientific theory on…a relationship with God. How does that work with relativity? Or germ theory? Or lplate tectonics?

 

[PetraG]

Utterly irrelevant. Any theory can use any evidence it sees fit. Its proponent can accept or reject any evidence for any valid scientific reasoning.

The question still stands. How do we tell which theory is the best at explaining the evidence? The number of papers written? Number of experts in the relevant fields who accept it?

And you must realise that this answer must be valid for all theories.

Generally speaking, science runs on the explanation that at the moment is the best mnemonic for the data. There have been times when a particular model continues to be used even though it has problems because there isn’t one that is any better. When a discovery comes along that addresses the problems, sometimes it explains why the first model was fine as far as it went, concerning that it couldn’t account for the newly-discovered confounding variable, and sometimes the first model simply has to be discarded entirely, in light of the new way of looking at the problem. It just depends.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

this answer must be valid for all theories.

That would be the case if we were just a collection of molecules no different from those that constitute this electronic equipment we are currently using.

Nobody has suggested that. Only you as you were building your straw man. If you like you can search the umpteen posts on this trhead to find one single example of anyone who
has sugested it.

I wouldn’t bother. There aren’t any. It’s a fantasy to deflect from any suggestion that those who deny evolution hold fundamentalist positions. I find it incredible that it’s a barrow you still insist on pushing.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

glad to see that you have corrected your position

“Clarified” dude. Seriously, what is your point? Lol.

My point, dude, is that you made a statement that was incorrect and are yet to admit it. You cannot clarify an incorrect statment. You can only correct it. Which you have.

 

[Bradskii]

It just depends.

So apart from personal opinion (my theory is better than yours), what would be a good indicator that any given theory does indeed explain certain evidence the best way?

 

[rossum]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that with every spontaneous reaction, matter will always go from its given state of organization to a more disorganized state.

Not quite. The SLoT says that the whole universe will become more disorganised. It allows for a small part to become less disorganised while the rest increases disorganisation.

From the time it was created as it is now, which I see as the fall, everything is becoming more disorganized.

Not everything. When salt water evaporates the water is becoming more disorganised, but the salt crystals left behind have become less disorganised. Many natural processes can decrease entropy locally.

 

[Aloysium]

So you dermine the validity of a scientific theory on…a relationship with God. How does that work with relativity? Or germ theory? Or lplate tectonics?

That would be the case if we were just a collection of molecules no different from those that constitute this electronic equipment we are currently using.

So, if we want to talk about life, which is us, we have to go beyond the forces that govern plate tectonics, the structure of time and space (relativity), and also “germ theory” which I interpret to mean infectious medicine, dedicated to understanding a very narrow, albeit important, area of the physical interaction between viruses and bacteria with other life forms.

 

[Aloysium]

Not quite. The SLoT says that the whole universe will become more disorganised. It allows for a small part to become less disorganised while the rest increases disorganisation.

And eventually, as that unalterable process continues, the small part will also disorganise.

 

[PetraG]

So apart from personal opinion (my theory is better than yours), what would be a good indicator that any given theory does indeed explain certain evidence the best way?

You have to honestly compare which theory says the most about the most observations and which theory’s shortcomings represent the least serious conflict with the facts.

For instance, let’s say that I want to believe that the creation of all life was a one-time event that occurred in a relatively short span of time 6,000 years ago, which is about 1,000 years before recorded history began.

That explanation beggars belief, from a strictly natural point of view. It would require that (for instance) the rate of radioactive decay in many different articles be very different from each other,. It would require that the weathering of rocks occur at different rates in different places. I suppose nothing is impossible, but that one ranks so far into the realm of the improbable that it would have to be miraculous. So, while someone might say, “Well, I think there is no other conclusion but that the miraculous must have happened,” I cannot see how they can possibly berate anyone for proposing alternative scientific theories that do not involve miracles. The grace to believe in miracles should not be required to accept a scientific theory.

Science, for its part, sometimes has to admit, “in light of the evidence, we don’t have a theory based on natural law that is at all plausible.” That is as close as science is going to get to “maybe it was a miracle,” because the miraculous, being above being put to test, is by definition above science. Science can only say, “in our current state of understanding, we have no explanation for this that is even plausible.”

I think evolution meets the criteria of being plausible as far as it goes. It has problems; it might not hold up in its present form. There might be, for instance, discovery of a mechanism for macro-evolution (that is, the appearance of new species with chromosomal arrangements incompatible with any previous species) which does not occur due to random mutation. The mechanism for that might be very different than the mechanism by which some forms of the same gene come to vary within a single population.

I have yet to see an explanation for simultaneous creation of all life 6,000 years ago that can explain the fossil and anthropological record as simply weathered artifacts originating in that era. That kind of thing can conceivably be true, but such an explanation is not within the realm of science. It would be a miracle, and science is not in the business of declaring miracles. Science can only declare the absence of a natural explanation for a body of facts. It cannot declare miracles.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So you dermine the validity of a scientific theory on…a relationship with God. How does that work with relativity? Or germ theory? Or lplate tectonics?

That would be the case if we were just a collection of molecules no different from those that constitute this electronic equipment we are currently using.

So, if we want to talk about life, which is us, we have to go beyond the forces that govern plate tectonics, the structure of time and space (relativity), and also “germ theory” which I interpret to mean infectious medicine, dedicated to understanding a very narrow, albeit important, area of the physical interaction between viruses and bacteria with other life forms.

So it’s your position that the validity of any theory that relates to human life is dependent upon a relationship with God.

If that isn’t a fundamentalist religious outlook, then I don’t know how else one could describe it.

It is then totally beyond me why anyone who admits to that position would even attempt in any way to discredit evolution from a scientific perspective. You only need a short post to explain your position and then be done with it.

No-one who doesn’t believe in God is interested in your position on this matter and all those who do believe in Him keep telling you there is no problem. With whom are you arguing?

 

[Bradskii]

I have yet to see an explanation for simultaneous creation of all life 6,000 years ago that can explain the fossil and anthropological record as simply weathered artifacts originating in that era. That kind of thing can conceivably be true, but such an explanation is not within the realm of science. It would be a miracle, and science is not in the business of declaring miracles. Science can only declare the absence of a natural explanation for a body of facts. It cannot declare miracles.

All very true. And despite you seeing no reasonable explanations, you have, in this thread, seen more arguments than one could count that evolution is bunk.

So my question is in effect this: How can any sane person reject the consensus on any given scientific matter if it is, to all intents, universally accepted?

And I am not suggesting that we simply have a vote as to what is true and what is not. But try if you will to find any acceptance whatsoever that there is indeed almost complete universal acceptance. Surely any reasonable person would say: ‘Yes, I’ll admit that the weight of evidence is massively against my position…’

And also try to find anyone who says: ‘But my position is based on a specific reading of religious scripture’. Zero chance. None whatsoever. The lack of honesty in this regard is astonishing. Every argument is put forward as a scientific argument. And very bad scientific arguments as it turns out. They may as well try to convince us that the world is 6,000 years old and then claim that it has nothing to with religion.

Colour me bemused.