|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 25, 2024 8:50:20 GMT
Intelligent design is a direct descendent of creationism, invented specifically because various logical results of creationism are so stupid that it had to be hidden in a pseudoscientific cover. BTW your "before life begins smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules" makes no sense. Provide evidence for this throwaway claim. And lets note again: evolution makes no claim before life begins so it is essentially a deflection. For a long time reasonably intelligent people thought that perhaps the components of RNA could build chains of RNA against the rule that things in lifeless nature break down. Crystals go against the rule but their activity is not in fact a reversal of entropy. Building a living thing requires enormous reversals of entropy. Laboratories have tried for decades to observe some sort of spontaneous construction involving existing very short RNA chains in the case they might construct something more. The problem appears to be that they also tear each other apart. A life process only works because it takes place in a highly protected environment. In the cold cruel world before several systems are in place to secure construction, disorder reigns as usual as predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Think about an animal that is dying. It has everything it needs for life but one little detail. Why doesn't it just "jump" to the next step of life again? Like the last step in some construction from lifeless matter? Where is that last step? It cannot happen because the universe does not allow such construction. The universe is busy heading for entropy. Here is the math that explains what laboratories have observed for decades. Yes, there can be small, trivial reversals of entropy. There can be spontaneous construction. In mathematical language, "construction > 0." There is however more to the story. All the agencies of construction are also very much agencies of destruction. Mathematically, "destruction > construction." Those two facts combine to give a "limit" to construction the laboratory can observe. As construction proceeds the likelihood it gets broken increases. At some point the probability of destruction reaches "1" or absolute certainty. That is the limit observed in laboratories for decades. Case closed. If you still think this requires more "proof" you are too ignorant to have an opinion. Your understanding is not required. Your approval is not required. This discussion board is certainly not required. It is a fact that things die just like it is a fact that things fall by gravity. It is a fact that there is no agency of construction to be found in lifeless nature. You can accept this fact or you can be idiots. Wow! What an amazing recital of entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. And as usual with amateur mathematicians and physicists you have got it all wrong. You are never going to see entropy demonstrated at laboratory level. |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 25, 2024 9:02:53 GMT
Not entirely true. The term evolution itself is a proven fact. Charles Darwins "theory of evolution by natural selection" often just shorted to "theory of evolution" is a theory (edit: because there is more processes defining evolution than just natural selection, such as genetic variability).
For starters, evolution cannot be a fact: it is a set of principles which attempts to explain how life appeared and developed on our planet. It is not a pinnacle of biology and not a definite answer to life. It is a work in progress. We tend to see it in terms of a conflict between evolutionism and creationism, but there is and has been plenty of criticism of the evolutionary theory from within the scientific community. There are plenty of holes in it. In short, we don't know enough. And that is something we all need to remember when we engage in arguments about highly politicized scientific theories. Evolutionary processes are a fact, just as although there are theories of gravity, tossing an apple in the air demonstrates thd fact of gravity. While there are probably details in evolutionary theory, enough to get scientists arguing, the basic theory is well understod and almost universally accepted. Creationism is just plain wrong. There is nothing in creationism that deserves thought, from seeing artifacts over 6000 years old to looking at a tv which disproves the wackiness of carbon dating arguments. Intelligent design suffers from one serious ailment. It starts from the untestable assumption of a creator so by definition of science is not a scientific theory. I wll stick with the flying spaghetti monster which has the same level of validity as ID and is validated with a good sauce. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 25, 2024 9:42:03 GMT
For a long time reasonably intelligent people thought that perhaps the components of RNA could build chains of RNA against the rule that things in lifeless nature break down. Crystals go against the rule but their activity is not in fact a reversal of entropy. Building a living thing requires enormous reversals of entropy. Laboratories have tried for decades to observe some sort of spontaneous construction involving existing very short RNA chains in the case they might construct something more. The problem appears to be that they also tear each other apart. A life process only works because it takes place in a highly protected environment. In the cold cruel world before several systems are in place to secure construction, disorder reigns as usual as predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Think about an animal that is dying. It has everything it needs for life but one little detail. Why doesn't it just "jump" to the next step of life again? Like the last step in some construction from lifeless matter? Where is that last step? It cannot happen because the universe does not allow such construction. The universe is busy heading for entropy. Here is the math that explains what laboratories have observed for decades. Yes, there can be small, trivial reversals of entropy. There can be spontaneous construction. In mathematical language, "construction > 0." There is however more to the story. All the agencies of construction are also very much agencies of destruction. Mathematically, "destruction > construction." Those two facts combine to give a "limit" to construction the laboratory can observe. As construction proceeds the likelihood it gets broken increases. At some point the probability of destruction reaches "1" or absolute certainty. That is the limit observed in laboratories for decades. Case closed. If you still think this requires more "proof" you are too ignorant to have an opinion. Your understanding is not required. Your approval is not required. This discussion board is certainly not required. It is a fact that things die just like it is a fact that things fall by gravity. It is a fact that there is no agency of construction to be found in lifeless nature. You can accept this fact or you can be idiots. Wow! What an amazing recital of entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. And as usual with amateur mathematicians and physicists you have got it all wrong. You are never going to see entropy demonstrated at laboratory level. The thing about mathematics is that if a person has the math right, that person is right, regardless of qualifications. Also if a person has it wrong, that person is wrong, regardless of qualifications. What I have told you is mathematically sound, so it doesn't matter how stupid you think I am or how smart you think you are. Truth has its own power. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 25, 2024 10:53:50 GMT
Technically he is not wrong. The Evolutionary theory is, after all, a theory. It just happened that at the moment we have no better way of explaining the living world. Science is not religion. You are not supposed to believe in it. You are supposed to constantly question theories, try to improve them and strive for the truth - not a truth you find convenient. Evolution is a theory, just like general relativity, and no one believes it based on the “revelation” of Charles Darwin. Tucker speaks for MAGA, which is heavily Fundamentalist, aka Bible Believing, Christians and in their worldview, the Word of God supersedes anything and everything written or believed by humans, including the Constitution, History, and Science itself. And if the Bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, or a Bible scholar or preacher’s interpretation there of, then that’s The Truth, no further need to learn or know anything more. Their only problem is, their theory of Creation has zero evidence for their claims, while the theory of evolution has quite a bit. And as far as I know, no scientist has organized against and punished Bible believers, while the Bible believers have killed thousands of scientists right up until the 1600s. Galileo at least got house arrest for the rest of his life. Once the church stopped persecuting scientists, then our modern age became possible. |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Apr 25, 2024 11:31:52 GMT
Once the church stopped persecuting scientists, then our modern age became possible. Excellent point. But it's not really about the "church". Every power supports science (or pseudo-science) which they think will benefit them and persecutes science (or pseudo-science) they find inconvenient. The Commies considered genetics and cybernetics false capitalist sciences, the Nazis thought that race theory was real science (it's making a comeback now in a different guise). The main thing is to remember not to treat science as religion. It exists to be questioned. The moment you start "believing" in science, something has gone wrong. And when you start marginalizing doubters, you are no better than a fundamentalist. |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Apr 25, 2024 12:01:33 GMT
Once the church stopped persecuting scientists, then our modern age became possible. Excellent point. But it's not really about the "church". Every power supports science (or pseudo-science) which they think will benefit them and persecutes science (or pseudo-science) they find inconvenient. The Commies considered genetics and cybernetics false capitalist sciences, the Nazis thought that race theory was real science (it's making a comeback now in a different guise). The main thing is to remember not to treat science as religion. It exists to be questioned. The moment you start "believing" in science, something has gone wrong. And when you start marginalizing doubters, you are no better than a fundamentalist.. While I agree in general you also have to temper your questioning too. Question when new ideas, evidence, events, or new tech that puts theories in question. There is a tactic though for people who disagrees with science. They will want the Scientist to reexplain everything that has previously learned when new things come to light. If they find some gap in knowledge in genetics some psuedo-science, religious, CT etc will then question everything associated with the topic. They want people to reprove gene theory. I've seen some go as far to go all to way Theories that define atoms, molecule, and types of bonds based on new Genetic Evidence. And if you don't you are just basing your ideas on things you haven't researched yourself, you are just pulling info from a book. Basically if you don't reprove everything remotely associated with the topic Yourself, you aren't doing your due diligence. Theories are the closet things we have to facts in Science. They are the end all be all level of explaining the natural world. They explain the why of natural world and just below that is Laws that tells the how usually with math. So Newton law of gravity uses math to explain how things move and how gravity affects things. The Theory of Relativity (normal and special) tells you why gravity works. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulsLaugh on Apr 25, 2024 12:03:37 GMT
Once the church stopped persecuting scientists, then our modern age became possible. Excellent point. But it's not really about the "church". Every power supports science (or pseudo-science) which they think will benefit them and persecutes science (or pseudo-science) they find inconvenient. The Commies considered genetics and cybernetics false capitalist sciences, the Nazis thought that race theory was real science (it's making a comeback now in a different guise). The main thing is to remember not to treat science as religion. It exists to be questioned. The moment you start "believing" in science, something has gone wrong. And when you start marginalizing doubters, you are no better than a fundamentalist. The folks who think science is a religion are the non-scientists. There will also be a few outliers to this notion, that is scientists who treat the object of their study like a religion, but it is not the norm. The scientific method itself prevents “religious faith,” that is belief in the unseen and unknowable. If Darwin’s original theory is today’s standard model for evolution of life, then you are mistaken. It has changed radically since then, especially with the discovery of DNA. And studying evolution means you have to go backwards. Unlike physics, there is no mathematical theory to use as a frame. Doubters in any scientific theory are more than welcome in the sciences, providing they can back up their claims that mainstream science is wrong and they are right. And it cannot be a science theory of any kind that posits a beyond space and time Creator as an already established fact before any scientific research begins. That is called confirmation bias and is cognitive dissonance. The Discovery Institute is composed of Christians, mostly Catholics, who want to put God “back into the classroom.” Everything they’ve offered as proof has been debunked by mainstream science. |
|
|
|
Post by Factchecker3Point0 on Apr 25, 2024 12:06:10 GMT
I'll never get the thinking of (usually Bible thumping) people who argue against evolution.
We've got plenty of examples of it when certain species get separated.......and time passes......and lo and behold, they take slightly different paths.
I think it just comes down to how the human brain just isn't all that good at recognizing massively large numbers..........whether it's the size of space or the passage of millions or even billions of years.
I went to Catholic school for 13 years and we were taught evolution, both in grade and high school. Same here. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 25, 2024 12:08:22 GMT
Technically he is not wrong. The Evolutionary theory is, after all, a theory. It just happened that at the moment we have no better way of explaining the living world. Science is not religion. You are not supposed to believe in it. You are supposed to constantly question theories, try to improve them and strive for the truth - not a truth you find convenient. Evolution is a theory, just like general relativity, and no one believes it based on the “revelation” of Charles Darwin. Tucker speaks for MAGA, which is heavily Fundamentalist, aka Bible Believing, Christians and in their worldview, the Word of God supersedes anything and everything written or believed by humans, including the Constitution, History, and Science itself. And if the Bible says God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, or a Bible scholar or preacher’s interpretation there of, then that’s The Truth, no further need to learn or know anything more. Their only problem is, their theory of Creation has zero evidence for their claims, while the theory of evolution has quite a bit. And as far as I know, no scientist has organized against and punished Bible believers, while the Bible believers have killed thousands of scientists right up until the 1600s. Galileo at least got house arrest for the rest of his life. Once the church stopped persecuting scientists, then our modern age became possible. Evolution has fewer holes than relativity. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 25, 2024 12:10:58 GMT
He's a special kind of stupid. More like “a special kind of cynical grifter.” But is he really that special? |
|
|
|
Post by abbey1227 on Apr 25, 2024 12:38:44 GMT
I'll never get the thinking of (usually Bible thumping) people who argue against evolution.
We've got plenty of examples of it when certain species get separated.......and time passes......and lo and behold, they take slightly different paths.
I think it just comes down to how the human brain just isn't all that good at recognizing massively large numbers..........whether it's the size of space or the passage of millions or even billions of years.
I went to Catholic school for 13 years and we were taught evolution, both in grade and high school.
And how did they serve it up to you in that setting?
Seems to me you're limiting your deity if you can't buy into the theory that they made everything .......to include evolution. And that some desert dwellers simply got the time periods/passage of time wrong because they couldn't comprehend.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Apr 25, 2024 13:03:41 GMT
For a long time reasonably intelligent people thought that perhaps the components of RNA could build chains of RNA against the rule that things in lifeless nature break down. Crystals go against the rule but their activity is not in fact a reversal of entropy. Building a living thing requires enormous reversals of entropy. Laboratories have tried for decades to observe some sort of spontaneous construction involving existing very short RNA chains in the case they might construct something more. The problem appears to be that they also tear each other apart. A life process only works because it takes place in a highly protected environment. In the cold cruel world before several systems are in place to secure construction, disorder reigns as usual as predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Think about an animal that is dying. It has everything it needs for life but one little detail. Why doesn't it just "jump" to the next step of life again? Like the last step in some construction from lifeless matter? Where is that last step? It cannot happen because the universe does not allow such construction. The universe is busy heading for entropy. Here is the math that explains what laboratories have observed for decades. Yes, there can be small, trivial reversals of entropy. There can be spontaneous construction. In mathematical language, "construction > 0." There is however more to the story. All the agencies of construction are also very much agencies of destruction. Mathematically, "destruction > construction." Those two facts combine to give a "limit" to construction the laboratory can observe. As construction proceeds the likelihood it gets broken increases. At some point the probability of destruction reaches "1" or absolute certainty. That is the limit observed in laboratories for decades. Case closed. If you still think this requires more "proof" you are too ignorant to have an opinion. Your understanding is not required. Your approval is not required. This discussion board is certainly not required. It is a fact that things die just like it is a fact that things fall by gravity. It is a fact that there is no agency of construction to be found in lifeless nature. You can accept this fact or you can be idiots. Wow! What an amazing recital of entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. And as usual with amateur mathematicians and physicists you have got it all wrong. You are never going to see entropy demonstrated at laboratory level. He doesn't want to convince those with knowledge, he just wants to sound convincing to the dumb... As I'm not Manfred Eigen I won't put work into showing where Olaf Plunket 'accidentally divides by zero' (mathematically speaking...) |
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 25, 2024 13:04:00 GMT
Wow! What an amazing recital of entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. And as usual with amateur mathematicians and physicists you have got it all wrong. You are never going to see entropy demonstrated at laboratory level. The thing about mathematics is that if a person has the math right, that person is right, regardless of qualifications. Also if a person has it wrong, that person is wrong, regardless of qualifications. What I have told you is mathematically sound, so it doesn't matter how stupid you think I am or how smart you think you are. Truth has its own power. It is a pity then that you have the maths wrong. I dont give a flying fuck about your qualifications. If you blather about a subject using big words it doesnt mean you are right. It just means you dont know how to apply them and your result makes no sense. . |
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 25, 2024 13:52:34 GMT
He's a special kind of stupid. More like “a special kind of cynical grifter.” But is he really that special? No, not special at all, but so much more polished than someone like Trump - whose con can be seen from space - he fools a lot of people into thinking he's sincere about what he says. Even after it's been disclosed that he loathes Donald Trump after years of kissing Trump's rump on national television night after night, for years. |
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 25, 2024 23:50:44 GMT
Wow! What an amazing recital of entropy and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. And as usual with amateur mathematicians and physicists you have got it all wrong. You are never going to see entropy demonstrated at laboratory level. He doesn't want to convince those with knowledge, he just wants to sound convincing to the dumb... As I'm not Manfred Eigen I won't put work into showing where Olaf Plunket 'accidentally divides by zero' (mathematically speaking...) Of course you won't be showing your work, because you don't have any. I did not "divide" by anything, much less zero. When others tried to explain that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits the sort of reversals of entropy required to to build a living thing, the atheists said, "but there are reversals of entropy in an open system." I acknowledge that there are, but it doesn't matter because they are trivial and observed to be defeated in all laboratory scenarios. If you don't like or understand the math, what is your explanation of the always repeated laboratory results? |
|
