Why do conservatives hate science so much?

I'm sorry, but you don't. Please don't take this the wrong way - while I may be blunt, I honestly do not mean this in an insulting manner. I am more than happy to have a civil discussion.

First, people often mischaracterize the 2nd law of thermodynamics as relating to order/disorder, but this is not necessarily the case (at least in the context of how it is applied in arguments against evolution). It mostly relates to certain types of energy transfer, mainly temperature, pressure, and chemical potential (molecular kinetic/potential energy).

Second, your application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is reversed. In a closed system, entropy will never decrease. In open systems, entropy can, and does, decrease. The Earth is an open local system, and thus, entropy does not increase necessarily.

Third, based on the above, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution. This is a very old argument that has since been thoroughly debunked countless times. For some reason, evolution deniers refuse to let it go.

Your entire argument against evolution seems to rest on this misapplication of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which makes it unequivocally incorrect. It is important that I specifically point out that this is not an opinion or a personal view - this is scientific and physical fact. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is wholly irrelevant to evolution and continuing attempts to use it as a defense is silly.

The idea that mutations cause organisms to get stronger or weaker is incorrect. It's simply change to better fit within their environment. Sure, a mutation could cause a population to become physically "stronger" (more muscle mass, more powerful bite, able to run faster, etc), but that is not necessarily the "best" change for the environment. If a species has few to no competing predators, it may be more beneficial if a mutation arises that decreases physical "strength", as it allows for a lower expenditure of energy. It may surprise you that this is what happened to humans. As our intellect grew, our physical strength diminished, as it was unnecessary. This didn't make humans "weaker", but rather better adapted to our environment.

Also, there are no species which are "resistant" to mutation. While you are correct that your examples of sharks, crocodiles, and horse shoe crabs have not changed as much as other species over a span of time, it is due to the fact that they are already highly adapted to their environment. There are no environmental pressures to force large changes. In other words, they're not "strong" (better adapted) because they don't change, but rather, they don't change because they're already "strong" (adapted).

 

This would be a very bad thing. Mutations refresh the genetic diversity of a population, which is biologically important as it provides the genetic material necessary for natural selection. In other words, no mutation = no evolution.

 

Mutations are random, but natural selection is not. There are three outcomes to a mutation - it is harmful to the organism, it is beneficial, or it is neutral. As long as a mutation is not detrimental to survival, it can be passed on to offspring and has the potential to disseminate throughout the population. A mutation that helps an organism survive would obviously have the greatest chance of spreading.

Genetic mutation is not decay (see previous post on why the argument based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong).

 

Hmm.. i get it.. & i got it. I'm not sure you guys get each other, by the responses, but perhaps those are just PC clarifications. Cute dismissal, though.

I read through 'the joke' & saw that he 'got' the underlying problem, even with the sarcasm disclaimer: No vertical changes in genetic structure. You have variability (which is reducing, at that) & NO increases in complexity or movements into distinct genetic types. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. Bacteria remain bacteria. Sharks remain sharks. It is speculation, assumption, & assertion that these vertical leaps are made, not any scientific evidence. You are welcome to believe what you wish about origins, but there is no scientific basis for your conclusions. Unless & until solid scientific evidence is provided, rather than dogmatic assertions, i will keep my skepticism intact. I see no reason to abandon logic for these philosophical constructs.

 

Good post. What we actually observe is a decline of variability within the family/genus/species 'types'. Traits are lost.. unique species are gone. New ones are not being 'evolved'. We see LESS variability today than we did 200 yrs ago. We have bred some different traits.. mutations in dogs, horses, corn, soybeans, etc, but these have not produced NEW species, only different colors & superficial qualities. The basic genetic structure is unchanged. Now we have lost many distinct species.. dinosaurs, fish, cats, dogs, horses.. animals & plants of tremendous variability no longer exist, & we cannot conjure them back. Their code is gone. We can find traces of it, but we cannot regenerate life from it. Jurassic park & dr. frankenstein were fiction.. we can't mess with genetics this way.. or at least, not yet.

But to assume that this somehow 'happened', or 'could happen' with no mechanism to explain it, or no proof that it could or did, is absurdly unscientific. It is science by dogmatic assertion.. typical of the Powers That Be & their protection of the status quo. This has always happened throughout history, where the scientific 'establishment' rules by decree, dictating what the acceptable view will be, & ridiculing, persecuting, & berating any dissenters. Fortunately, truth usually prevails, & real science becomes known.. but it takes skeptical, rebellious, scientific enquiry, not bobble headed assent to the status quo.

IMO, within another generation (or 2), the ToE will slowly 'evolve'. The claims of vertical speciation will diminish, & it will return to the more scientific 'natural selection' view of variability within a species/genus/type. Genetics will restore the mystery of life, & fewer dogmatic assertions will be made.. or at least they will change to whatever will be the 'new' pop science at that time.

The bottom line is this:
We do not know the origins of life, or increased complexity. Any attempt to explain it is a philosophical endeavor. Perhaps there will be evidence for this question, someday. But it is not this day.

 

I may not know evolution, but you're not understanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Only a closed system will entropy remain the same...
In an open system entropy always increases with spontaneous processes

Entropy never decreases, if indeed it would be the equivalent of free energy. A system would be giving off more energy than it takes and this violates the Law of Conservation of Energy which is very clear...entropy does not decrease, even in a closed system. Again it's the equivalent of a car building itself, a broken vase putting itself back together or a bullet going back into a fired gun...spontaneously. Spontaneous events, like evolution, must involve an increase in entropy...an increase in disorder. Yet what we observe is low order going to high order...a clear violation of a physical law whether the system is open or closed.

So if folks are going to say I know nothing about genetics, which may be the case...but y'all are not understanding what entropy is.

Entropy never decreases, it can only increase or remain constant.

Evolution is genetic entropy. The DNA decays which causes mutations, effecting the organism. Sometimes the mutation is good or sometimes it's bad in terms of survivability. Certain organisms seem to resist decay, their DNA resists entropy and does not increase, it remains static which is perfectly acceptable within the 2nd Law.

 

Straight from a textbook.

II. Thermodynamic systems
Energy transfer is studied in three types of systems:

Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system.
Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).

As I was saying, the Earth is essentially a closed system, while evolution seemingly decreases in entropy violating the 2nd law. In reality evolution is indeed increasing entropy or remaining static, we're seeing genetic decay and mistaking it for a low order moving to a higer order....a vase fixing itself, a spontaneous process of self-organizing..which is not what's going on. The second law of thermodynamics states that in general the total entropy of any system will not decrease other than by increasing the entropy of some other system. If evolution is a spontaneous decrease in entropy, and the Earth is open, what other system is evolution increasing the entropy of? The Sun?

Can the "experts" answer that?

I've given a textbook version, clearly stating the Earth is a closed system and the probability of a spontaneous process decreasing entropy on a system is very, very low...yet evolution appears to be a rather routine event in nature.

Explain please?

or can I expect the usual

"You don't know anything about evolution"

Answer the question, spare me the insults.

What other system's entropy is increasing if indeed evolution is causing a decrease in entropy? What drives evolution to self organize? Sunlight?

It isn't that's the answer....it's decaying.

Genetic entropy.

Nobody can disprove that, so y'all resort to fallacious arguments and spend half the post claiming I don't understand evolution.

It is you who don't understand.

 

there is always an assumption that because fossil records look like present day species they are the same and haven't evolved which isn't correct. How can you tell from a fossil sharks tooth whether it was a scavenger or predator, cold water or warm water, shallow water or deep water all of which required different evolution...all that you know is it's general form which is influenced by life in water is generally the same but that also applies to all fish, they're all shaped for a life in water...and we generalize far to much about how sharks haven't evolved, even modern sharks are extremely diverse in shape, habitat and behaviour....the difference between the "typical" shark demonstrate that they too evolve , most people think of great white as the unchanged shark, but whale sharks are very dissimilar and rays skates even more so...

 

You are free to suppose what ever you want but dont call it science.

 

I'm embarrassed to admit I missed the "/sarcasm" at the bottom...

 

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong - it's backwards - and I understand physics quite well, actually. Entropy increases in a closed system. Entropy can decrease in a local open system, of which the Earth is an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_law_of_thermodynamics

It is actually more accurate to say, "entropy will not decrease in a close system", since entropy can increase or decrease in an open system. To put it another way, entropy can decrease locally within a system without violating the overall increase of entropy of the system in total. So even though, for example, the Earth is locally open with an influx of energy from the sun, overall, the entropy of the universe in total is still increasing.

So again, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is absolutely irrelevant with respect to evolution.

Absolutely false. Crystallization is another example of a decrease in entropy.


This argument is very old and has zero credibility. It has been shown to be false over and over, and by scientific minds greater than mine. It is literally as silly as someone still arguing that the Earth is flat. Science is all about challenging our understanding, and as such, you are more than welcome to put forth alternate evolutionary explanations - but violating the laws of thermodynamics and already been tried, and failed. Be warned, however, the theory of evolution is one of, if not the, most well tested and understood scientific concepts. So much so, that trying to deny it simply looks foolish. You have a tough road ahead...

 

Our genome is breaking down constantly, and the negative mutations are piling up faster than the positive ones. No known mechanisms of natural selection are sufficient to change this trend.

Every new generation includes at least 50 mutations

Evolution does not move forward, it is a process of decay....

Experimental evidence shows our genome is deteriorating, and our species is getting weaker...not better.

The only interpretatoin that can be made is that evolution is merely a by-product of decay.

 

I'm not sure if you are directing this at me specifically, or you are speaking more generally, but I agree with you. I didn't mean or try to imply that sharks or other species haven't evolved, only that some may not have changed as much relative to others.

 

just speaking generally, adding to the topic...many people assume a specie stops evolving at some optimum point but it never stops, the shark of hundreds of millions ago is not the same shark of today despite a similarity in appearance...

 

Darwin's theory suggests

Organism======evolving to lower entropy and a higher organism due to random and spontaneous mutation====>Complexity increases.

Evolution is true, but Darwin got it wrong....which leads us with a big question, how is complexity increasing at both levels of the theory?

Complexity increases<======================devolving to higher entropy due to spontaneous random mutations====Organism.

Evolution violates the law of entropy...seemingly.

If evolution is following the normal pattern to a closed system, and it is indeed a form of decay. Why does an organism often increase it's complexity over time?

What we should be seeing is a reduction in complexity. A vase gets broken, over time even the pieces get scattered around. The vase never spontaneously begins to self organize and turn into vase again once broken.

Even in an open system, it would suggest some force acted on the vase to organize...so what force is acting on evolution to increase in complexity while at the same time increase in entropy.

Darwin's theory is accurate in terms of how organisms evolve...yet it shouldn't be moving forward towards complexity it should be movng backwards towards disorder.

A vase does not fix itself once broken.

Iron ore does not spontaneously turn into a sword.

Yet we accept evolution's spontaneous mutations moving forward with decreased entropy and increased complexity.

We tell ourselves, given enough time, randomness will eventually self-organize, or make it appear so. this is what we're supposed to swallow hook, line & sinker and worship at the altar of Darwin.

Darwin was right about evolution, he was wrong about it moving forward...and if it is?

There's some explaining to do, because it shouldn't be. So what's going on here?

 

and they are reabsorbed and disappear back into the gene pool just as fast in a large population they're insignificant...

evolution does not move forward or backward, there is no right or wrong...

completely subjective, there is no better or worse, forward or back, weaker or stronger...there is only what works at any given point in time...

 

Sure - it all depends on the frame of reference. In other words, how you define "system". How old is that textbook? I won't go so far as to call it "incorrect" without being able to read more, but it certainly words things oddly. The quote above is self-contradictory - "The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun...". If the Earth obtains lots of energy from the sun, then by definition, it is not a closed system. If you stretch it, you could make the argument that our solar system is a closed system (which technically is also incorrect, but it's "less open" than the Sun -> Earth). See the frame of reference change related to "system"?

(Also, I think you'd be surprised how often textbooks get things wrong. I've personally found more than a handful back in my day. Anyway, I want to clarify that I am not making this argument in this case, but rather just pointing out the appeal to authority fallacy.)

I apologize, as I said, my intention was not to insult - I am simply blunt. I was merely pointing out the observation that you are still perpetrating the fallacious thermodynamics argument against evolution. It is unequivocally incorrect, and in repeating it, you are showing ignorance of evolution (and thermodynamics).

Yes, the sun. A burning sun is forever in a state of increasing entropy. A large amount of the energy released by it is absorbed/transferred to the Earth and the living organisms that inhabit it.

Sorry, no. Again, mutation is not decay.

If you display an ignorance of evolution (and thermodynamics), then naturally, you don't understand. Again, I mean no offense, that's just a logical observation/conclusion. I am certainly not saying that you cannot understand, or lack the intelligence to understand - only that, at this particular moment, your own words betray your claim of understanding.

 

and what was originally a water dwelling creature evolved to live on land then evolved again to return to the water(whales), there is no right or wrong only what works, one form is not better than another...

 

Actually, most mutations are neutral, by themselves having neither a positive nor negative affect.

This is true, but not for the reason you believe it so. The term "moving forward" is dependant on the being a destination, or goal. Evolution/natural selection has no goal, and thus is not really moving toward anything. It's just change.

No.

Please define your usage of "weaker" and "better", unless they refer to your concept of "decay" or some other application of thermodynamics. In that case, this is just wrong, and has already been explained as such, so no need to bother.

No.

 

Bad analogy. A vase is not made of organic molecules/cells that can self-replicate. A vase has no RNA/DNA. A vase cannot reproduce (sexually, asexually, mitosis, etc) or otherwise make copies of itself.

Same basic fallacy as the vase.

 

It's a good thing there exists DNA Repair mechanisms that are up to the task of performing an astoundingly effective array of corrections.

 

You're in denial.

You worship at the altar of Darwin.

As DNA replciates, it transfers information..it's a signal.

Signals should be degrading over time, which it is n the form of mutations...yet these mutated signals often move the replication process to a higher level of complexity...

For example the human brain....the most complex organism in the known Universe..

Time, randomness and evolution....first...created life. Spontaneously combined carbon molecules into organic soup. Life emerged...replication ensued...informatoin is passed to each subsequent generation,

Of course the neo-Darinists say.

Information theory does not apply to evolution.
2nd llaw of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution.

We're to assume an amoeba, a one celled creature spontaneously evolved into higer order and compexity leading to our brain.

The argument for this is of course....given enoiugh time, anything can happen.

The only people in denial are neo-Darwinists.

I agree with the premise of evolution, but where we separate is in questioning it's "weirdness" for lack of a better word..

Leave a petri dish with a moldy piece of bread.

Leave it alone for a billion years. A brain will eventually form.

The Earth is exposed to sunlight, and very little matter outside of the planet itself. It's a closed system...therefore this is the premise of Darwin. The petri dish with the moldy piece of bread is exposed to sunlight, the only outside form of energy that could be acting on it and effecting it's entropy.... it evolved with each mutation, into an increasingly complex organism.

It's a flawed premise, on a good day.

 

Technically, there isn't really a 'closed system'. Energy is always moving to a simpler state, or seeking equilibrium. the sun is burning out. It is not growing in energy. There might be 'bursts' of energy from the sun.. sun spots, or flares, but these are still equilibrium seeking patterns. Some of the energy from the sun is in heat & light to the earth. it is used by living things to increase complexity, such as photosynthesis.. which takes simple carbon, oxygen, & water & converts it to a more complex compound. But heat & light coming to earth have NO organizing power of their own. They cause weather patterns, which spread rain or snow around, & provide the narrow range of climate to support life. But ultimately, all the energy coming from the sun is also dissipating, or seeking a simpler state of equilibrium. It does not store up in the earth, except by life processes, storing potential in carbon forms, such as trees. But once these trees die, they either break down by sun & water exposure, or burn up from lightning strikes. They do not store their energy indefinitely, but decay & move to equilibrium. That energy used & converted by photosynthesis is paid back.. given back & dissipated out to space. Fossil fuels are stored energy.. potential from an earlier 'gathering' of carbon sources, compressed, & either liquefied or hardened into coal. But these all came from the sun & photosynthesis. There is no free lunch of energy existing in nature.

But for practical purposes, & in the life sciences, the earth is an open system, on the receiving end of energy, as a constant supply is sent our way. Yet this energy has no organizing power, but can only move from state to state as it seeks equilibrium. Heat from the sun causes evaporation in the ocean.. the water vapor is blown around by the wind until condensing on a land mass. Rain falls, changing the earth & storing kinetic energy in snow & mountain lakes & pools. I can use that kinetic energy in my kayak, riding the current downstream. But the energy was not free, nor did it seek a more complex state. The state it seeks is always simpler, if you look at the bigger picture. Fortunately for us, the sun's energy also dissipates at about the same rate it comes in, or we would burn up.

The earth is open. It requires the constant addition of solar energy for the climate processes & especially, life, to exist. Take away the sun, & all life on earth dies. Without the constant addition of energy to the earth, it could not support life as we know it. Without the atmosphere to trap heat & filter harmful radiation, life as we know it could not exist. But the energy that comes from the sun is not free. It has a shelf life. It is like taking a gallon of crude oil, igniting it, & using the energy from that combustion to cause state changes or store other energy. It will not burn indefinitely.

That is the basic concept of entropy.. it is a common sense observation about how things really are, not something abstract or complicated. Energy is moving to equilibrium, & there is no free energy, anywhere. By extension, this same principle applies to matter, which also seeks equilibrium.

 

No, technically the Earth is a closed system.


Systems can be classified as open, closed, or isolated. Open systems allow energy and mass to pass across the system boundary. A closed system allows energy but not mass across its system boundary. An isolated system allows neither mass or energy to pass across the system boundary.

What mass is passing across the system boundary?

Meteors on occasion, neutrinos?

The Earth is for all intents and purposes, a closed system.

It allows sunlight energy in, but matter is kept out.
Cosmic rays, and radiation have momentum but no mass, neutrinos have a very tiny mass.

Earth is a closed system effected by the Sun's energy for all practical purposes.

The Universe taken as a whole...is an isolated system.
The Earth is closed.
You and I...are open systems

yet even in an open system, spontaneous decrease in entropy has a low probability of occurance, but yes some sytems can move from disorder to order in an open system. For it to happen the event involves a transfer of energy...one moves to order the other to disorder...

No free energy...even in an open system.

 

I (we) tried. I'm starting to wonder if this is willful ignorance. I expected more from you, Herk.