ashtar said:
No my friend it's the other way around. we're talking about origins of life and the different theories that ought to or not be taught in science classes.
I'm arguing that if you are willing to teach Darwin's theory of evolution as possible explanation for origins of life in a science class then you ought to teach "intelligent design" as well. Because they both meat the same amount of scientific rigor in explaining the origin of life (which is to say none).
Or the other option is to just teach Darwin's theory of evolution as observed within each species (and not to try to link humans to having evolved from bacteria) and instead teach both "intelligent design" and "evolution theory" as the origins of life in a philosophy class.
cute but not convincing.
I'm arguing that if you are willing to teach Darwin's theory of evolution as possible explanation for origins of life in a science class then you ought to teach "intelligent design" as well. Because they both meat the same amount of scientific rigor in explaining the origin of life (which is to say none).
Or the other option is to just teach Darwin's theory of evolution as observed within each species (and not to try to link humans to having evolved from bacteria) and instead teach both "intelligent design" and "evolution theory" as the origins of life in a philosophy class.
cute but not convincing.
I have some familiarity with the argument, and I feel comfortable claiming it's one of the most hilarious things I've ever come across.
I picked this up from another forum:
Here's an excerpt from a letter published in a university newspaper:
(written by a student with no background in physics or science)
Now, unlike evolution's supporters, I can prove my claim. Evolution is thermodynamically impossible. According to the laws of thermodynamics, the amount of entropy in the universe increases or remains constant. Entropy is randomness, disorder and chaos. The idea that more sophisticated life forms would come from less sophisticated ones (i.e. order from disorder) violates that law. Now if you have some way to prove the laws of thermodynamics to be invalid, please let me know, as the proceeds from the discovery would be enough to buy this university several times over.
Here's one response from a grad student in physics:
"Symn's letter ("Thermodynamics disputes evolution," Feb. 10) is a perfect example of how ignorance allows people to believe whatever they want. I myself am ignorant of the many topics that back evolution, but I know at least a little about the topics Symns discussed. I do not expect the average person to understand thermodynamics but, as a graduate student in physics, I can assure you that Symns' "proof" is greatly flawed. Thermodynamics says that the entropy of a system must not decrease. It does not say that the entropy of part of that system cannot decrease. The entropy of the Earth is allowed to decrease because the sun provides energy to it. At the same time, the entropy of the Sun increases such that the total entropy of the Sun-Earth system increases. Thus no laws are broken and we are allowed to exist without resorting to creation. I am not an expert on evolution, so I will not get too deep into that topic, but I can see that Symns' later argument is flawed as well. He gives a good example of natural selection but fails to see that natural selection and evolution are two different concepts. Evolution is a consequence of natural selection, but it involves random gene mutations and millions of years. Also, it only applies to living organisms because only they can reproduce and pass on their genes. Buildings cannot do that. There are an overwhelming number of topics that prove evolution. Try reading Darwin's "The Origin of Species," studying biological bone structures or getting a degree in DNA homology, but please do not rely on the Internet for all of your information. Also, keep in mind that just because you do not understand something (and I certainly do not understand DNA homology) doesn't mean that it is not true."
Here's another from two distinguished professors:
As faculty members in the College of Engineering, we would like to first express our sincere apologies to the faculty and students of our institution that someone as ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics as Andrew Symns ("Thermodynamics disputes evolution," Feb. 10) has managed to "slip through the cracks" and is now very close to graduating. Clearly, we in the college are doing an inadequate job of educating our students.
In response to Mr. Symns letter, we are reminded of the famous quotation by the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan, "We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts." Whether Mr. Symns and others choose to believe or disbelieve in evolution is no concern of ours. However, when they misstate and misuse scientific facts in an attempt to prove their point, they engage in behavior that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
Mr. Symns states that, "the amount of entropy (that is, disorder) in the universe increases or remains constant," and implies that because of this, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states it is impossible for order to arise from chaos. However, this is completely untrue. A more valid statement of the Second Law would be, "the entropy of an isolated system increases or remains constant," where an isolated system is a system that does not interact with its surrounding. Since the universe has no surroundings to interact with, it is, by definition, an isolated system. This means that the entropy of an individual system can decrease, so long as it interacts with its surroundings in such a way that the total entropy of both system and surroundings increases. In other words, order can arise from chaos, so long as the disorder somewhere else in the universe increases even more.
We see order arising from chaos all the time. For example, on a snowy day, water droplets freeze to form the beautiful crystals we call snowflakes. The snowflakes are far more ordered than the water droplets, but this does not violate the Second Law, because in order for this to happen, heat is transferred to the atmosphere causing the entropy of the atmosphere to increase even more than the decrease in entropy caused by the formation of the snowflakes. Similarly, living creatures do not exist in isolation. They interact with their surroundings all the time by breathing, eating, drinking, etc. Thus, there is no violation of the Second Law if the creature becomes more ordered over time, so long as its interactions with its surroundings causes the entropy of the surroundings to increase even more.
In an attempt to belittle those whose belief systems differ from his own ("go ask your half-monkey/half-fish cousin to evaluate your logic first"), Mr. Symns has instead demonstrated his own ignorance. His letter reminds us of another famous quotation, this one from Samuel Johnson: "It is better to be thought a fool and remain silent, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
I picked this up from another forum:
Here's an excerpt from a letter published in a university newspaper:
(written by a student with no background in physics or science)
Now, unlike evolution's supporters, I can prove my claim. Evolution is thermodynamically impossible. According to the laws of thermodynamics, the amount of entropy in the universe increases or remains constant. Entropy is randomness, disorder and chaos. The idea that more sophisticated life forms would come from less sophisticated ones (i.e. order from disorder) violates that law. Now if you have some way to prove the laws of thermodynamics to be invalid, please let me know, as the proceeds from the discovery would be enough to buy this university several times over.
Here's one response from a grad student in physics:
"Symn's letter ("Thermodynamics disputes evolution," Feb. 10) is a perfect example of how ignorance allows people to believe whatever they want. I myself am ignorant of the many topics that back evolution, but I know at least a little about the topics Symns discussed. I do not expect the average person to understand thermodynamics but, as a graduate student in physics, I can assure you that Symns' "proof" is greatly flawed. Thermodynamics says that the entropy of a system must not decrease. It does not say that the entropy of part of that system cannot decrease. The entropy of the Earth is allowed to decrease because the sun provides energy to it. At the same time, the entropy of the Sun increases such that the total entropy of the Sun-Earth system increases. Thus no laws are broken and we are allowed to exist without resorting to creation. I am not an expert on evolution, so I will not get too deep into that topic, but I can see that Symns' later argument is flawed as well. He gives a good example of natural selection but fails to see that natural selection and evolution are two different concepts. Evolution is a consequence of natural selection, but it involves random gene mutations and millions of years. Also, it only applies to living organisms because only they can reproduce and pass on their genes. Buildings cannot do that. There are an overwhelming number of topics that prove evolution. Try reading Darwin's "The Origin of Species," studying biological bone structures or getting a degree in DNA homology, but please do not rely on the Internet for all of your information. Also, keep in mind that just because you do not understand something (and I certainly do not understand DNA homology) doesn't mean that it is not true."
Here's another from two distinguished professors:
As faculty members in the College of Engineering, we would like to first express our sincere apologies to the faculty and students of our institution that someone as ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics as Andrew Symns ("Thermodynamics disputes evolution," Feb. 10) has managed to "slip through the cracks" and is now very close to graduating. Clearly, we in the college are doing an inadequate job of educating our students.
In response to Mr. Symns letter, we are reminded of the famous quotation by the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan, "We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts." Whether Mr. Symns and others choose to believe or disbelieve in evolution is no concern of ours. However, when they misstate and misuse scientific facts in an attempt to prove their point, they engage in behavior that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
Mr. Symns states that, "the amount of entropy (that is, disorder) in the universe increases or remains constant," and implies that because of this, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states it is impossible for order to arise from chaos. However, this is completely untrue. A more valid statement of the Second Law would be, "the entropy of an isolated system increases or remains constant," where an isolated system is a system that does not interact with its surrounding. Since the universe has no surroundings to interact with, it is, by definition, an isolated system. This means that the entropy of an individual system can decrease, so long as it interacts with its surroundings in such a way that the total entropy of both system and surroundings increases. In other words, order can arise from chaos, so long as the disorder somewhere else in the universe increases even more.
We see order arising from chaos all the time. For example, on a snowy day, water droplets freeze to form the beautiful crystals we call snowflakes. The snowflakes are far more ordered than the water droplets, but this does not violate the Second Law, because in order for this to happen, heat is transferred to the atmosphere causing the entropy of the atmosphere to increase even more than the decrease in entropy caused by the formation of the snowflakes. Similarly, living creatures do not exist in isolation. They interact with their surroundings all the time by breathing, eating, drinking, etc. Thus, there is no violation of the Second Law if the creature becomes more ordered over time, so long as its interactions with its surroundings causes the entropy of the surroundings to increase even more.
In an attempt to belittle those whose belief systems differ from his own ("go ask your half-monkey/half-fish cousin to evaluate your logic first"), Mr. Symns has instead demonstrated his own ignorance. His letter reminds us of another famous quotation, this one from Samuel Johnson: "It is better to be thought a fool and remain silent, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
No my friend, I was trying to point out that ID is as scientific in offering a possible explanation for origins of life as is Darwin's theory of evolution.
Just because parts Darwin's theory of evolution can be supported scientifically it doesn't automatically mean that its application to the origins of life meets scientific expectations as well. Linking evolution of random elements in to random amino acids then their evolution in to proteins and then evolution of random proteins to complex compartments and genetic materials lacks any substantial scientific evidence.
Instead of pointing me to Pubmed why don't you choose one scientific paper of your own choice and direct the rest of us to it where it actually shows how any of the points I mentioned above can scientifically be shown to be able to exist.
Just because parts Darwin's theory of evolution can be supported scientifically it doesn't automatically mean that its application to the origins of life meets scientific expectations as well. Linking evolution of random elements in to random amino acids then their evolution in to proteins and then evolution of random proteins to complex compartments and genetic materials lacks any substantial scientific evidence.
Instead of pointing me to Pubmed why don't you choose one scientific paper of your own choice and direct the rest of us to it where it actually shows how any of the points I mentioned above can scientifically be shown to be able to exist.
That's right. My point is not that there is substantial evidence in support of ID but rather that there is not substantial evidence in support of evolution as the explanation for source of life either. Thus if you're willing to teach kids to believe in humans randomly evolving from random gases that existed billions of years ago on earth why not also teach them to believe in ID or "pimp design" or Santa Clause design as well. Get my point?
For the sake of time, from here on when I say evolution theory (ET) I mean evolution theory as applied in explaining the origins of life and connecting it to human life (as we understand it) and it has nothing to do with theory of evolution within species and certain organisms.
You are wrong in assuming that my point about entropy has anything to do with the claims you quoted. Those claims try to refute the possibility of evolution within various organisms, (which is not what I'm saying at all). My point about entropy and the laws of thermodynamics is NOT about forming or maintaining complex structures from already-existing complex structures. Rather my point is that proponents of ET expect you to ignore the laws of thermodynamics (including entropy) which make it more unlikely for random amino acids to come together and form complex proteins and then for those proteins to come together and form complex compartments and enzymes and organelles and RNA etc etc. And instead they try to make it seem that ET can easily link Miller's experiment to formation of a single-celled organism. It is here that they ignore scientific evidence and expect you to take that leap of faith and assume that random amino acids like living creatures have the capacity to purposefully obtain energy in order to maintain more complex structures for the purpose of forming a living organism.
You are wrong in assuming that my point about entropy has anything to do with the claims you quoted. Those claims try to refute the possibility of evolution within various organisms, (which is not what I'm saying at all). My point about entropy and the laws of thermodynamics is NOT about forming or maintaining complex structures from already-existing complex structures. Rather my point is that proponents of ET expect you to ignore the laws of thermodynamics (including entropy) which make it more unlikely for random amino acids to come together and form complex proteins and then for those proteins to come together and form complex compartments and enzymes and organelles and RNA etc etc. And instead they try to make it seem that ET can easily link Miller's experiment to formation of a single-celled organism. It is here that they ignore scientific evidence and expect you to take that leap of faith and assume that random amino acids like living creatures have the capacity to purposefully obtain energy in order to maintain more complex structures for the purpose of forming a living organism.
Last edited:
Ashtar jan, no, I haven't yet. So you accept evolution to be a valid theory as to the complex systems, so you have no problem as to its teaching in public education system. However, you do disagree with the origins of life theorized by science backed by scientific evidence (I don't wanna cite articles out for you, as godlesscommie is already doing; even though you can just go to pubmed or even google and search for such publications), and yet agree with intervention by a greater being without any, absolutely, no evidence whatsoever. I'm sorry, but I don't know is it just me, or it's just too obvious which topic we oughta be teaching in schools. Your argument for inteligent design is just as good as any argument for pimp design.
I'm sure of one thing though, no justification, evidence, hard proved facts we provide here is going to change your opinion or thought on this matter. One can only accept this fact after careful and thorough research and study.
I'm sure of one thing though, no justification, evidence, hard proved facts we provide here is going to change your opinion or thought on this matter. One can only accept this fact after careful and thorough research and study.
Backed by what scientific evidence? Don’t mean any disrespect (and please don’t take it the wrong way) but you guys sound like the neo-cons and their claims of overwhelming evidence for the existence of WMDs.
You keep referring me to Pubmed to do some search. I've been reading the papers you want me to research for a good portion of my life and continue to do so. Why don't you do the search yourself and just present us with ONE scientific paper regarding this issue?
One more time, try to get it straight that Darwin's theory of evolution is different from what they currently teach in science classes regarding origins of life. What they teach in Science classes are Darwin's observations regarding evolution within species then they go a step further and talk about Mendel's genetic studies and then talk about genetic drift and natural selection and all that jazz (which are all scientific and well founded). But then they say wait a minute, if evolution and natural selection can produce giraffes with longer neck and human's with nicer ass then may be it's possible that humans evolved from monkey's (mind you there is no hard scientific evidence that humans evolved from monkeys it's just a theory. For all we know monkeys devolved from humans or they evolved in parallel with humans and their genetic pool never actually crossed). Then they say well if it's possible that humans evolved from monkeys then may be monkeys evolved from something else and that thing from something else all the way to a single-celled organism and then they try to jump from a single-cell organism to amino acids and Miller's experiment. In this jump they try to suggest that natural selection and evolution were somehow responsible for formation of more complex proteins and genetic material and such from basic gases, water, and lightening all in random and without any purpose. I will concede right now that it is very well POSSIBLE that their theory is correct but it’s also POSSIBLE that god created these things and it’s POSSIBLE that "pimp daddy" created these. The issue is not what is POSSIBLE but what is scientific fact.
The opponents of ID say it should be kept out of science classes because it’s not scientific fact and I say fine but lets also keep the theory of humans randomly evolving out of gaseous atmosphere out of science classes as well because it too is not scientific fact.
the issue is what is scientific and what is not. godless talked about this already and i can only add a little to his writings. god created life and pimp daddy created life are not scientific. but actually being able to see that progression of the appearance genes links species in a time-dependent manner or that the appearance of fossils supports evolution from monkeys and not devolution provides more proof for the theory of evolution. being able to show that RNA molecules can self-replicate and self assemble also provides evidence that relatively simple molecules can propagate and therefore be subject to mutation and natural selection. now you just throw out some unsupported statements and once they are disproven (as in your brilliant entropy argument) you just ignore it and move on to other equally flawed arguments.
we have stated our understanding and beliefs i think it's time for you to do so. here is a simple list of questions for you:
1. do you believe that each species was created individually by god?
2. do you believe that evolution happens within a species?
3. if so what prevents evolution from one species to another? in other words if a german shephard, great dane and shitzu are all the same species (having evolved from some parent dog species) then couldn't dogs have evolved from wolves even though they are different species?
finally, you are mistaken about the goals of the ID movement in the united states. they are not advocating the removal of evolution from science teachings. they are advocating the teaching of ID as a valid alternative. which it is not.
we have stated our understanding and beliefs i think it's time for you to do so. here is a simple list of questions for you:
1. do you believe that each species was created individually by god?
2. do you believe that evolution happens within a species?
3. if so what prevents evolution from one species to another? in other words if a german shephard, great dane and shitzu are all the same species (having evolved from some parent dog species) then couldn't dogs have evolved from wolves even though they are different species?
finally, you are mistaken about the goals of the ID movement in the united states. they are not advocating the removal of evolution from science teachings. they are advocating the teaching of ID as a valid alternative. which it is not.
I am sorry, I find this discussion rather disappointing. It is said that immigrant communities become like their host countries over time. I guess it has happened to the well-educated Iranians in US. We are engaging in the same moronic discussions that are takig place in the larger US community.
Of course God created heaven and earth in only seven days. Well six days to be exact, he rested and oberved Sabbath on the seventh day. It says so right in the bible. And since the bible is the word of God (of course only the version of the bible I use), it must be true. End of discussion.
Of course God created heaven and earth in only seven days. Well six days to be exact, he rested and oberved Sabbath on the seventh day. It says so right in the bible. And since the bible is the word of God (of course only the version of the bible I use), it must be true. End of discussion.
I can get you tons and tons of papers regarding this specific issue. Scientists don't make egregious assumptions like different religions do. The argument regarding the divergence of humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor is very well accepted in the scientific community, that there are those who are even advocating chimpanzees inclusion in the human branch of the family tree.
One such paper, that provides evidence in the form genetic analysis, is this: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/12/7181
I'm sure you can find even more papers regarding this issue, by just looking at the references cited in this paper, or looking at other publications by these authors or others. Again search in pubmed, you'll find the information.
One such paper, that provides evidence in the form genetic analysis, is this: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/12/7181
I'm sure you can find even more papers regarding this issue, by just looking at the references cited in this paper, or looking at other publications by these authors or others. Again search in pubmed, you'll find the information.
I think komonistehbikhoda has said all there is to say about the topic, and Ashtar in his usual and eloquent way, is playing with words and offers no substance whatsoever. In fact, he admitted that the pimp theory deserves as much attention as ID. The fact is we can not teach every imagineable, and I mean to use the word "imagine", theory on every topic there is in schools. There are simply not enough hours in the day to do that, so we have to pick what is the best alternative for a given topic. Darwin's theory is hands down, the best explanation for evolution and the origin of life, yes, I said it, "origin of life". The place for other theories is the home, church, grocery stores, coffee shops, anywhere but schools. As an example, I was discussing the origin of life with my then 6 year old son, and I told him about Darwin's theory and that it was what I believed in. He looked at me, thought for a second, and said: "I think it was Adam & Eve", to which I replied: "ok, you can believe that if you like", and that was the end of the conversation. A belief is just that, something personal that you choose to believe in whether or not it has any basis in fact. To enforce it on others as science is simply irresponsible.
p.s. the whole notion of human beings being "superior" to other beings, is the biggest crock of $hit imagineable. You show me the last time an animal lied, cheated, or killed for any other reason than survival, and I will admit that human beings are "superior". More self-righteous BS from the fundamentalist viewpoint.
p.s. the whole notion of human beings being "superior" to other beings, is the biggest crock of $hit imagineable. You show me the last time an animal lied, cheated, or killed for any other reason than survival, and I will admit that human beings are "superior". More self-righteous BS from the fundamentalist viewpoint.
Hell, it will probably raise the average human IQ! Year, and years of evidence and scientific research, and there are still those out there stubborn enough to hang on to the ridiculous notion that apes evoluation never crossed paths with human beings! Sheeesh! Any five year old looking at some of our government officials would agree to it!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
some scientific evidence of observable speciation. but we cannot rule out the possibility that god made these new species.
some scientific evidence of observable speciation. but we cannot rule out the possibility that god made these new species.