(February 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm)Carnavon Wrote: To state that evolution is the only way to get complex life is a statement you cannot make as this is by far not proven and is actually contradicted by the second LAW of thermodynamics (entropy) and has never been circumvented if a system is left to itself – whether an open or closed system. It can be argued that when additional energy gets into a system, it increases disorder rather than decreases it/create order.

This is in Esq's link, but it just has to be spelled out.
The second law states that, in a closed system, the level of entropy cannot decrease.

Now, if you ask me, the Earth is anything but a closed system. The sun is sort of constantly supplying energy... and this tiny planet only captures a bit of all the energy that's being sent out.
It is thus excused to have a bit of negative entropy on the biomass...

(February 3, 2014 at 5:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm)Carnavon Wrote: To state that evolution is the only way to get complex life is a statement you cannot make as this is by far not proven and is actually contradicted by the second LAW of thermodynamics (entropy) and has never been circumvented if a system is left to itself – whether an open or closed system. It can be argued that when additional energy gets into a system, it increases disorder rather than decreases it/create order.

This is in Esq's link, but it just has to be spelled out.
The second law states that, in a closed system, the level of entropy cannot decrease.

Now, if you ask me, the Earth is anything but a closed system. The sun is sort of constantly supplying energy... and this tiny planet only captures a bit of all the energy that's being sent out.
It is thus excused to have a bit of negative entropy on the biomass...

Nevermind the Earth, organisms aren't even closed systems!

(February 3, 2014 at 5:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(February 3, 2014 at 5:01 pm)pocaracas Wrote: This is in Esq's link, but it just has to be spelled out.
The second law states that, in a closed system, the level of entropy cannot decrease.

Now, if you ask me, the Earth is anything but a closed system. The sun is sort of constantly supplying energy... and this tiny planet only captures a bit of all the energy that's being sent out.
It is thus excused to have a bit of negative entropy on the biomass...

Nevermind the Earth, organisms aren't even closed systems!

yes, but the Earth is big. The Sun is waaaaaayyyy bigger!
This seems like the simplest way to explain to simple minds how they have been deceived.

If I talk about organisms, it just makes them go back to saying that it's the evolution of these organisms that's causing negative entropy and they'll never get that this evolution is a part of a much greater system.

(February 3, 2014 at 5:21 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 3, 2014 at 5:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Nevermind the Earth, organisms aren't even closed systems!

yes, but the Earth is big. The Sun is waaaaaayyyy bigger!
This seems like the simplest way to explain to simple minds how they have been deceived.

If I talk about organisms, it just makes them go back to saying that it's the evolution of these organisms that's causing negative entropy and they'll never get that this evolution is a part of a much greater system.

Their logic confounds me because they don't even protest micro-evolution, yet if entropy applies to organisms at all this is precisely what it would limit. There is macro-evolution because there is micro-evolution. Speciation occurs within the micro-evolution of two split populations whose genes have different environmental pressures to meet.

This guy Carnavon is like a creationist poster boy. In a single thread, he has parroted many creationist strawman arguments and lies. When he runs out of ammo, he will simply rinse and repeat. Fun times, right guys?

if you want to be a creationist so badly, go ahead. You're the one missing out on an experience here. You'll never understand how it feels like to understand that we are related to every living thing on this planet. You'll never get the chance to study biology properly, and that's the science that I think laymen care about the most because so much of it is about learning about yourself and your ancestry. You'll never be able to fully appreciate it. So go ahead, live this life as a creationist, I don't even want to know how that feels like. Must be horrible.

(February 3, 2014 at 2:42 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: According to your best information?

If Eldredge and Gould proposed that, then they would be wrong.
Evolution is a done deal.

Of course they could be wrong, and I am 100% sure they are. What this however indicates is that they recognized that the fossil record has some serious explaining to do as it is inconsistent with slow transition - see lack of millions and millions of transitional fossils.
Thanks Bad Wolf.

---

(February 3, 2014 at 7:55 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: This guy Carnavon is like a creationist poster boy. In a single thread, he has parroted many creationist strawman arguments and lies. When he runs out of ammo, he will simply rinse and repeat. Fun times, right guys?

Great post but for the lack of evidence presented.

You're welcome?

Two reasons for gaps in the fossil record might be: 1. Palaeontology is hard work and it takes a long time to find very old fossils. But of course, the fossil record is constantly improving even if slowly. 2. Speciation occurs within small populations that do not leave much in the fossil record. It is only once a species finds its niche and stabilizes does its population grow large enough to leave fossils behind (conditions for fossilization are rarely met).

(February 4, 2014 at 12:54 am)Carnavon Wrote: Of course they could be wrong, and I am 100% sure they are. What this however indicates is that they recognized that the fossil record has some serious explaining to do as it is inconsistent with slow transition - see lack of millions and millions of transitional fossils.

Except that this claim is completely and utterly incorrect. Here's a list of all the transitional fossils that you say there aren't, liar. Moreover, this is plenty given how rare the formation of fossils actually are.

All this just goes to show how little research you actually do before you form your conclusions, making everything you think ignorant by default. Actually learn shit before you decide what is and isn't wrong, and then maybe your opinion might have some heft.

By the way, any movement on the "who are Eldredge and Gould?" front? Because those last names... I could just say anything I want and attribute it to someone else, would that have any more credibility than what you've done? What matters is whether or not they're qualified to make that assessment; given that it's incorrect, they probably aren't.

Names and references, or stfu.