Evolution

The intent of this forum is to discuss the controversial topics of religion & politics. I am a Christian, and know that these topics are very emotionally charged. I hope to keep this interesting and intellectual, and I hope you do the same.

Evolution

Postby Bret » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:43 am

There have been attempts in the past to disprove evolution, by stating that evolution does not comply with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Thermo2). Thermo2 can be stated many different ways, but essentially says that given no outside influences (in a closed system), the overall system will tend to increase in entropy over time. Entropy is a very difficult concept to understand, and is often incorrectly equated to “randomness.” A better synonym for entropy is probably equilibrium, rather than randomness. Thermo2 doesn’t necessarily disprove evolution, because a higher life form can be in greater state of entropy (equilibrium) than a lower life form.

I will take a slightly different approach, based on the idea of “motivation” – what motivates objects to combine with other objects to form new ones. We’ll start at the same place that evolutionary theory begins: the atom.

Chemistry states atoms combine with other atoms to produce molecules with the lowest energy state possible. Atoms will combine with other atoms if the combination will ultimately release energy, and will likewise un-combine with other atoms if they will ultimately release energy. The motivational force behind what the atoms do (how they combine with other atoms) is their energy level.

Thermo2 states that in a closed system, the atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine in a way that maximizes entropy. The amount of energy transferring between the different objects within the system will equalize out over time, and the distribution of energy will become “uniform” from the perspective of the system (though not necessarily from the perspective or the individual objects within the system). The motivational force behind what the objects do (how they react and combine with each other) is the system entropy.

The Theory of Evolution states that the way atoms and molecules combine is determined by Natural Selection. That is, atoms and molecules will combine and un-combine randomly, potentially forming “useful” objects (say, amino acids or proteins or DNA strings). The combination will stay together longer if it is “more useful” or “more fit” than some other random combination of atoms, based on its “survivability.”

Natural Selection states that these molecular combinations somehow “perceive” that they are potentially useful (whether they actually are or not), have a “will” or “volition” or “desire” to survive, and will try to replicate themselves into eternity. Are you already beginning to see how utterly preposterous this whole concept is?

Obviously, the molecular combinations have no “will” or “volition”, and “survival” and “replication” have no conceptual meaning to them whatsoever, and evolutionists never state that they do. Rather, there is a tacit assumption underlying the Theory of Evolution that says that the desire for complicated objects to survive as long as possible and replicate themselves is simply “built into” nature. There is no “will to survive” that comes from within an object, but rather it is an outside influence (Natural Selection) that determines how new, complicated objects are formed. Survivability (in the form of Natural Selection) supercedes, or at lease co-exists, with chemical, thermodynamic, and all other natural laws.

Unfortunately, Natural Selection is not a natural law at all, because it requires a “will” or “desire” or “intelligence” that is capable of determining whether or not objects are worthy of surviving. Evolutionists implicitly state that there is something inherent in nature that looks at an object and says, “What you atoms did there might be a really good thing. You need to do that again. Did you atoms over there see what they just did? You need to do that too.” Of course, that is utterly preposterous (the stuff of dementia, not of science). Unfortunately for evolutionists, that is the concept of Natural Selection in a nutshell.

I suppose one could try to argue that Natural Selection is itself a product of evolution, which of course involves circular reasoning. Natural Selection must be there from the very beginning, and it must apply at all levels (even at the molecular level). Without Natural Selection, the Theory of Evolution lies in shambles.

Trying to prove that Natural Selection is true is very problematic, not only because it lies outside the purview of the scientific method, but also because it is patently absurd even at face value. There must be a motivation to “survive”, which is not observed in anything except the higher life forms, and that comes from the inside, not the outside. It is simply impossible for molecules to evolve into higher life forms without outside influence, no matter how many millions of years you wait. There is no motivation for them to do anything except distribute into equilibrium.

I imagine that if confronted with the argument as stated here, an evolutionist could try to use the same circular reasoning they claim creationists always use. Essentially, “It’s true that if the motivational force to survive doesn’t exist, then evolution can’t be true. But evolution is true (because I believe it is), so the motivational force must exist. However, the force is not God (because I don’t believe he exists).”

If you actually believe that Natural Selection is true, you have a lot more faith in unprovable nonsense than I do in God. It doesn’t take a lot of faith to believe in something you can see evidence for everywhere you look. You just have to ask God to open up your eyes so that you can see The Truth.
Bret
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:43 am
Location: Rio Rancho, NM

Re: Evolution

Postby BastetFurry » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:56 pm

(in a closed system)

So, what if our system was never closed?
There are theories that life was brought trough an asteroid to this planet, not by the asteroid itself but by the things it started.
We created amino-acids just with boiling mineral saturated water and a bunch of simulated thunders, and if i remember correctly, that was in ~1920.
What if that asteroid started that? The system is not closed.

And for the evolution part, i for myself think that life itself strives for a higher goal, the creation of some kind of super-being.
Just think about it, every human generation is a tiny little bit smarter than the last one, and if that line wont stop, where will it take us?
BastetFurry
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:14 am

Re: Evolution

Postby Bret » Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:39 am

BastetFurry wrote:We created amino-acids just with boiling mineral saturated water and a bunch of simulated thunders, and if i remember correctly, that was in ~1920.


Look at this: http://www.gotquestions.org/abiogenesis ... heory.html

BastetFurry wrote:What if that asteroid started that? The system is not closed.


If you believe in the big bang theory (and I assume that you do), then you must believe that the system is closed. The system is the entire universe, not merely the earth. An asteroid is a very, very, very, very small part of the system, not an outside influence.

BastetFurry wrote:Just think about it, every human generation is a tiny little bit smarter than the last one, and if that line wont stop, where will it take us?


We are not smarter than previous generations, no matter how much we would like to believe that we are. We have a larger knowledge base from which to start than previous generations, so we do less "re-inventing the wheel" than we used to. But that's because of our technological ability to store and disseminate information, not because we're "smarter" or "better" in some way.

BastetFurry wrote:And for the evolution part, i for myself think that life itself strives for a higher goal, the creation of some kind of super-being.


I can certainly understand why you would want to think that, since it's really the only thing that could give your life meaning without God. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no evidence to support it, and in fact the evidence suggests the exact opposite. Mankind has not changed, and cannot change, at the most fundamental level -- he is still selfish and evil at his core.
Bret
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:43 am
Location: Rio Rancho, NM

Re: Evolution

Postby Pinkpuff » Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:16 am

Hi,

I may or may not technically be a Christian depending on your definition, but in any case I'm not an evolutionist per se (I've never really taken a big interest in biology), but I from what I understand of the theory, it's not that natural selection has a "will" or its own "concept" of what mechanisms are "good" vs what ones are "bad". I thought it was more like, the creatures which survive long enough to reproduce will naturally pass on their genes (since they lived) and the ones that die before having a chance to reproduce won't (since they're dead). Thus if there is some feature that a creature has that prevents it or hinders it from living long enough to reproduce, the creatures with that feature will have a good chance of dying out in a short number of generations (since few of them will live long enough to have opportunity to reproduce), thus the feature is eventually eliminated from the gene pool (which of course doesn't prevent it from being re-mutated back in eventually, but at least it's not being actively propagated). On the other hand, the ones whose features enable them to survive long enough to reproduce, since they're passing on their genes, many of their children inherit that feature, thus propagating it. The result being that features that are shared by those who survived are more likely to be ones which aid in survival and are more likely to be propagated to the next generation, whereas the features which are shared by those who did not survive long are less likely to aid in survival and less likely to be propagated.

Also, I'd like to take exception to this statement:

We are not smarter than previous generations, no matter how much we would like to believe that we are. We have a larger knowledge base from which to start than previous generations, so we do less "re-inventing the wheel" than we used to. But that's because of our technological ability to store and disseminate information, not because we're "smarter" or "better" in some way.


While I think that you're right on an individual level (i.e. I don't think our biology is significantly different enough to say that we're somehow innately smarter), on a societal level, I think we've come a long way, even in the past few hundred years.

Since we have more recorded history now than we did in the past, we are able to learn from our experiences as a race and see what worked, what didn't, and what the results of certain actions and attitudes are. And while of course a lot of people don't learn from this, a lot of pepole do. A hundred years ago, people with dark skin were treated as slaves and not entirely human. Since then we've grown as a society in such a way that we realize that we can't treat people like that and slavery is outlawed, and people that were once slaves now have the same rights as everyone else. A hundred years ago, women were treated as the property of men (you can still see remnants of this today in some of our traditions, such as the wedding ceremony) but now we've grown in such a way that (most) people understand that it is wrong to see people in that way.

Thus I think we've grown socially and morally as a society, not just technologically. That being said, of course we still have a very very long way to go to improve, but I do think we're on the way up as opposed to going down or staying the same.
Pinkpuff
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:50 am

Re: Evolution

Postby japheth » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:03 pm

Pinkpuff wrote:Hi,
... it's not that natural selection has a "will" or its own "concept" of what mechanisms are "good" vs what ones are "bad". I thought it was more like, the creatures which survive long enough to reproduce will naturally pass on their genes (since they lived) and the ones that die before having a chance to reproduce won't (since they're dead).


This is true and very important. Selection is not a law, it's a "statistical effect". There's no "will" or "subject" needed to make this effect happen.

Also, I'd like to take exception to this statement:

We are not smarter than previous generations, no matter how much we would like to believe that we are. We have a larger knowledge base from which to start than previous generations, so we do less "re-inventing the wheel" than we used to. But that's because of our technological ability to store and disseminate information, not because we're "smarter" or "better" in some way.


While I think that you're right on an individual level (i.e. I don't think our biology is significantly different enough to say that we're somehow innately smarter), on a societal level, I think we've come a long way, even in the past few hundred years.


I disagree. Today's homo sapiens has no higher IQ than the ones living 10.000 years ago. The "progress" which has happened since - some call it "cultural evolution", but this is a very misleading term - doesn't make us more smart. Also, while technical progress is undenyable ( although its effects are pretty ambiguous ), it's rather questionable if "social progress" happens at all - it might be just an illusion.
japheth
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:35 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby proxious » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:59 pm

remainds me of the lecture by Richard Dawkins
proxious
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:52 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby almajones » Sat May 28, 2011 10:29 pm

May I just digress for a second.

I do believe in evolution. I'm a catholic, and did you know that the catholic church actually teaches that the first few verses of Genesis are actually made as an introduction for the bible, a beautiful story about the creation which should not exactly be taken literally?

Anyhow, it's because of evolution that men and women, although belonging to the same species, are actually different. That's why women and women don't get each other (read this funny article about it).



Alma Jones is a blogger for hire and the editor of the natural pain relief blog, Natural Pain Remedies. She is also the consultant of fashion blogger Trinket Princess.
almajones
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:23 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby Mihail_B » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:33 am

I'm Christian too...

After a long time (and also because I got older) I came to the conclusion that
why don't need to buder about other belifs ... except in the case that their acts
are crimminal against inocent others... (this is where the police&army gets envolved ... - this kind of actions I mean, where police need to come in)

If you are a good person God will help you, because you help others ...

about evolution ...

I totaly disaprove randomness of sub-cuantic particles , as Einsten did... Some said that Einstein disagreed entanglement when he wrote "Can Quantum Mechanics be considered complete ?"
I strongle belive in entanglement ... I've studied a lot this "efect" ... and a good understanding of entanglement will help
scientists to get rid of "randomness" ...

Any way there was a evolution ... we can see that from the birth of stars and we can not negate that !

But that not an argument for stating that God does not exist, or humans have no soul, ... or things like that ///

I strongly belife that one day ... our children will find a more complete answer to "evolution"

You know that 10000> of years ago, light shined on Earth from our sun ... and
that light was reflected in space by objects on earth...
That light (few photons-compared to other sources of light) are still traveling in space
waiting for an invention that will let us look at them and see how really was on Earth, in our solar system, in our universe...

Imagine that one day .... using this will be able to look at persons that lived on earth thousands of years ago ... !
Imagine that one day ... our children will be able to see how really looked Jesus ... how was His life ... and not just that
even the profets and all others ....

Imagine that one day will be able to see why Hitler,Stalin and all others wanted to kill so many; whom were their allies, what secrets are covered by dark ...

No one can take that from us ... Light is traveling in space ... and one day they will know the true ...
(of course that's not all /// they will them want to hear them, and more /// but there also exist gravitational waves,
much smaller but they traveling too.... )

God was a Big Engineer ... we can see that everywhere were we look ...

I don't understand why anybody would be against Someone so good ? To Someone that always taked care of him ?

This is are my words ... but feel free not belive in them ... if you can be good and you think this words (my words)
are stoping you ... just live your life and forget them

Best regards to all ...
Mihail_B
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:05 am
Location: Romania

Re: Evolution

Postby Mihail_B » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:57 am

Bret wrote:
BastetFurry wrote:And for the evolution part, i for myself think that life itself strives for a higher goal, the creation of some kind of super-being.

I can certainly understand why you would want to think that, since it's really the only thing that could give your life meaning without God. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no evidence to support it, and in fact the evidence suggests the exact opposite. Mankind has not changed, and cannot change, at the most fundamental level -- he is still selfish and evil at his core.


Sorry BastetFurry ... but do you remember what Hitler used to tell to his people ... ?
"Ariens"(I don't know exactly how is written in english) - super human beens ... ; about the hate to jewish people - considering them the reason for all the evil on earth, of our "involution"; "burn the books"; "hate of class" bla-bla-bla
About Stalin's concepts... against God , against Christians for no reason ? Of course maybe there were some bad
christian, some bad jewish, but only a few hundreds out of millions ... There's no reason to kill millions for few hundreds ... like this dictators did ....

Because we die completly when we die ... we can call one one ... we can do what ever we want, and especially we must do what ever this dictators what to do ... [Can't you that this is just some "phsihological" words used by them
to atain their final purposes ... if you have an army that thinks it can kill anyone because they don't have any soul, and they completely die after they die ... you can conquer any ? They didn't really belive what they said ... they used this words for their purposes... .God damned purposes]

I can understant people that do not belive in God ... but I do not agree in any maner for ["killing"belifes] being validated as laws of states, and disableing the power of police/army to fight against organized crime ... 'cause that's what's all about ...
criminals and their wish for power ...

Have a good day ...
Maybe this kind of people will realize one day ... that their happiness can be obtained easier if you(they) are (a) good person(s) and even more productive to $ if that's what they want ...
Best regards.
- sorry for my [english] mistakes -
Mihail_B
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:05 am
Location: Romania

Re: Evolution

Postby brandonmarkings » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:03 pm

Is there a good picture of the evolution of man?


I'm looking for a picture that explains the evolution of man right from the single-celled organisms, to fish, to reptiles, to mammals, to hominids. If anyone can give me a link to a picture with evolution or a website with pictures of the start of evolution until humans today, that would be greatly appreciated.
Note: I'm not looking for the ape to man evolution picture, but am looking for a picture that demonstrates evolution from a much earlier time period.
brandonmarkings
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby SeanRamey » Tue May 24, 2016 5:37 pm

@bret
I am a little confused as to your beliefs. Do you belive in evolution or God? I get the notion that you believe in God, but your post was a lot to take in for me.

Anyways, evolution is very simply falsified, because, if there where many different forms of creatures and things that where brought about by random molecules and atoms forming together, we should have a huge abundance of very strange fossils. Yet, there are not even a single one. Not a single one... at all...

I don't understand how many people can overlook that simple fact. There is no need to go further into detail because that just flat out puts the nail in the coffin. If evolution is true, than it must be very different from how it is currently described.

And on top of that, I find huge amounts of reason to believe the Bible and God. See this link to see why the Bible must be the word of God, or else, something other than man, because man cannot make such predictions that the Bible makes and actually have every one of them come true. http://www.reasons.org/articles/article ... -the-bible
And we know that the Old testament was written long before the New testament, so that means that the writers couldn't conspire together and make up a story with predictions that seemingly came true.
SeanRamey
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:13 pm

Re: Evolution

Postby watlers world » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:53 pm

Does God continue work on his creations releasing each new evolution?
And he is just in a bit of a slump now? :?

Or...
Are we all waiting on the next version release that will make a monkey out of us? :D
watlers world
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 3:08 am


Return to Religion & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron