The second law of thermodynamics and evolution

[Creed of Heresy]

Well you had 4 pages of psudo science to mull thru.

Well, if he had been posting repeated links to "answersingenesis" then yes, you would be right, but as all of the posted links thus far contain information from confirmed bodies of ACTUAL SCIENCE with evidence, studies, and experiments to back them up, you're little more than a conceited liar. Like every other dumb-fuck creationist, for that matter. Or, as I'm going to refer to you idiots henceforth; delusionists. I shall also refer to "evolutionists" as realists henceforth, as these two terms perfectly describe each stance.

What they did not tell you is without a CODE of DIRECTION within all living things, the energy from the sun does what it does to your plastic dashboard and other things.
Cars are a good example. Have you got one?
Things tend to disintegrate over time.
Left to themselves, they do that, you fight the results of entropy all your life.
But no, everything you see is wrong.Thy eyes deceiveth thyself, sayeth the experts.

"Thine," you tool.

Cars disintegrate, but get this; the atomic parts of them that fell apart? They're still there! GASP! SHOCK! HOW CAN THIS BE?! hock:

Because entropy is the state in which things break apart. But the matter itself does not disappear. Shit doesn't just blink out of existence. It falls apart, loses its bindings, scatters in all directions, but it doesn't simply disappear.

Fuck, you're retarded. I stopped thinking things just blinked out of existence when I was 13. You're...wow, you're over 60 years old, and you still believe this bullshit?!



Oh fucking wow. Truly, age does not necessarily beget wisdom!

---

Sometimes it's really hard to tell if you're joking or if you're serious. For your own peace of mind I hope the latter isn't the case.

He's not.

[Thumpalumpacus]

By the way, it has been pointed out that those monkeys will NEVER pound out Shakespeare.

Why not? They clearly did pound out the bible.

[LostLocke]

Because entropy is the state in which things break apart. But the matter itself does not disappear. Shit doesn't just blink out of existence. It falls apart, loses its bindings, scatters in all directions, but it doesn't simply disappear.

And what's even better, is that since Earth is an open system with energy (the sun) incoming, not only does that material not just disappear, it gets picked up and reused by something else.

[Mister Agenda]

-I've read that the law contradicts the evolution
-so i hope some one explain it for me
-i hope someone share links that explain it ‎ ‏
-is there any videos about the second law of thermodynamics and evolution

-It doesn't. If thermodynamics worked the way people who think it disproves evolution think it does, life would be impossible.

-What is it with you and getting other people to find links for you? Google 'thermodynamics and evolution'.

-What is it with you and geting other people to find videos for you? Google 'why evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics youtube''.

---

Creationist bullshit. I've googled it a moment ago. It's also been debunked a million times.

i want the links of this debunked a million times

That seems excessive. One link debunking it conclusively should be entirely adequate.

---

Here u r
Morris Henrifa the Scientific Creationism says: "The second law of thermodynamics in that everything seeks to chaos, which precludes the possibility for development(, which requires the pursuit of the organization )

Morris Henrifa is profoundly ignorant for someone who thinks they can lecture people on science. A schoolchild should know that the second law applies to closed systems, and earth is in an open system. It gets sufficient energy to drive life and evolution from the sun. The solar system as a whole is effectively closed, which is why the sun will eventually become a black dwarf in about 12 billion years and life as we know it in this planetary system will become impossible. In a hundred trilion years, all the stars will be 'out'. Beyond ten to the hundredth years, the universe will be reduced to an ever-thinning cloud of widely-spaced photons. But all that doesn't prevent local reversals of entropy where there's an energy differential to drive them. The second law wins in the end, but if it didn't allow simpler molecules to form into more complex ones, not only life, but much of chemistry would be out the window. Do you think it's more likely that pretty much every scientist in a relevant field missed that, or that Mr. Henrifa doesn't know about what he is talking?

[Mister Agenda]

Well you had 4 pages of psudo science to mull thru.

Your ability to actually understand science has been well demonstrated elsewhere on this forum as well.

What they did not tell you is without a CODE of DIRECTION within all living things, the energy from the sun does what it does to your plastic dashboard and other things.

There's no abiogenesis model in which the first life derived energy directly from sunlight, for that very reason. The 'code' came way before photosynthesis. The usual energy source for non-biological organic chemistry is heat, and there were plenty of heat differentials in places where complicated chemistry was possible with protection from direct sunlight. The ability to derive metabolic energy from sunlight came later. And snow crystals (among others) form into intricate symmetrical patterns with no 'code' needed, driven by heat differentials.

Cars are a good example. Have you got one?

Why yes, yes I do.

Things tend to disintegrate over time.

Why yes, yes they do.

Left to themselves, they do that, you fight the results of entropy all your life.

Yes. Are you somehow under the impression that life contradicts entropy? It's no exception, else you could live forever.

But no, everything you see is wrong.Thy eyes deceiveth thyself, sayeth the experts.

In your case, it's more like thine eyes are closed tight so you don't have to see anything that might contradict your religious beliefs. Life is subject to entropy. All cells die. What science says does not contradict what you see, it is based on it. That is, it's based on reality.

---

By the way, it has been pointed out that those monkeys will NEVER pound out Shakespeare.

The chances are infinitesimal, and I generally agree: there would have to be more monkeys than there are atoms in the observed universe, it would be highly unlikely to happen. If there were infinite monkeys it would, of course, become a certainty.

A hundred years ago that BS made people drunk, but not today.

That is correct. Today we realize there has to be some sort of sorting mechanism at work for something like that to happen. For example, there's a computer program that randomly generates letters and saves the ones that fit a pre-determined phrase. It took about 40 'generations' to arrive at the this phrase from Hamlet: 'methinkis it is like a weasel'. The random letter generation furnishes the raw material while the selection mechanism supplies the information. In evolution, the reproductive environment is analogous to the pre-determined phrase, mutation to the random generation of letters, and natural selection to the program's sorting heuristic.

I remember A.E.Wilder Smith telling that the information (genetic code) is typed IN and it is also typed OUT, the monkeys could type forever and nothing would show on the paper.

This part doesn't make sense. Why would what the monkeys' type not show on the paper?

---

I think our ironic prof is alluding to a study apparently done to test the monkey hypothesis (such as it is). It seems that after a few pages of gibberish, our simian cousins developed a fondness for the letter N and typed it out continuously. If true then it's an amusingly interesting object lesson in the gulf between analogy and reality, even though the experiment fell somewhat short of the infinite monkey sample size required.

Of course, literal monkeys aren't random and are likely to try to tear up the typewriter. As I'm sure you're aware, but Prof might not be, the proposed monkeys are a metaphor for a perfectly random letter generator.

[LostLocke]

Of course, literal monkeys aren't random and are likely to try to tear up the typewriter.

At least the monkeys have the brain to tear up the typewriter. Humans, it seems, would attempt to eat it first....