Why do conservatives hate science so much?

Ignorance of what.

What am I missing.

There is solid evidence organic molecules can spontaneously occur. I can see how DNA/RNA can emerge, replication of the process, creating copies...the DNA/RNA mutates, a slightly different copy is made. An organism evolves and changes into something new. Hold the phone however. what we see now, in the human genome, in the map of our genetic code, is a degradation of the "signal" of information transferance from replicatoin to replication. Our genome is degrading. Over time, we would not see organisms moving from lower to higher order, we would see the opposite. The very first DNA/RNA splice that ever came into spontaneous existence, has been degrading ever since it's very first copy was made. Each subsequent copy should be worse than the next as the signal is degraded unless of course something is acting on it, and what is that something that increases it's entropy while evolution decreases it's. Is it heat? sunlight? heat and sunlight spontaneously cause systems to lose entropy? No they increase entropy...a car's paint fades, a person's skin gets wrinkled...
heat and sunlight increase a system's entropy not decrease it. Yet evolution appears to involve an organism moving from lower to higher order.

 

This has already been explained at great length.

No, we don't.

No, it isn't.

There isn't much else I can say. You really have to get past the whole thermodynamics/entropy vs evolution deal. It is completely debunked nonsense. All I can suggest from here is that you do more research for yourself, and hopefully you'll approach it objectively.

Here's a good place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

 

Well, it does depend on the definitions, doesn't it? you'll get a different definition depending on context. Here's a (not so simple) definition of 'closed system', from wiki..

Now, i admit that i did not specify which discipline i was referring to, but i think i did offer at least a layman's view & definition of how i was using the term. It is a bit nit picky, i suppose, to quibble about definitions, which is why i prefer a clearer expansion on what is being said, rather than dogmatic terms with vague meanings. Scientific terms, AND definitions, are often vague & differ depending on context. That is why it is better to clarify what you mean by explanation, rather than rely on a universal definition of terms. Without a consensus on definitions, we talk past each other, not understanding what the other means.

But technically, you are correct, in that the process we were describing was in the field of thermodynamics. I was going beyond that, somewhat, into more general usage of the term in other sciences. I was using any transfer of energy as an example of an open system, which by common usage, makes more sense. I question the 'open system' usage with the earth & sun, though.. since there is not 'exchange' but it is only one way.

I don't see a disagreement, but only different usages & definitions. I think we agree that energy flows one way in the earthly system, & sunlight has no power or mechanism to increase genetic complexity.

 

It would seem the new tactic being used by creationists is to learn a few scientific terms and try to use them against the science they got it from. Unfortunately for these folks, knowing a couple words does not work very well when dealing with those who understand what they actually mean, or imply.
What we end up with is a somewhat more complex version of the same stupidity, with fancier words.

The laws of thermodynamics have absolutely no bearing on an open system.....which is where we live.

 

Good dogmatic responses.. the TO faq would be proud!

seriously? these assertions are rebuttals? And quoting the premier propaganda site for evolution as your source?

How much time do you spend on creo sites? Do you research all the counter evidence for their views? I was on t.o. years ago.. when it was usenet. It was a evolution cheerleading, philosophical site then, & uses the same old tired arguments, now.

You still have NO mechanism to 'override' entropy, even though you dogmatically assert it. There is NO evidence of increasing complexity in life forms, either now or the past. The evolution evangelists have dogmatic assertions, & no science or anything that can be critiqued, reviewed, or tested.. just smug assertions that 'this is what happened'.

I suppose this passes for science, especially for progressives.. Critical thinking & scrutiny of evidence is not a high priority, but first determining does it fit within the agenda, THEN decide to embrace or reject it. So if this is the NEW definition of 'science', then yes, i can learn to hate that. It is an abandonment of the scientific method to embrace a political agenda, & 'science' is only co-opted as a useful term.. it is not used as a method of enquiry. It is pseudo science, like most of the progressives here who blabber on about things they only heard on pbs, or read on the talk.origins faq...

 

What, you think the universe is like the obama administration, who can suspend laws whimsically?

No, the laws of thermodynamics most certainly DO apply on earth, the solar system, & at your house. Entropy is going on, even if you don't see it, or understand it. Energy & matter are seeking equilibrium. They are NOT spontaneously becoming more complex or moving to higher potential levels.

You cannot generate order from energy application. There is nothing in sunlight to magically create order, even though plants 'seem' to magically grow, & matter 'seems' to spontaneously generate. But these things that 'seem' reasonable have been shown to be superstitious. If you don't get all the answers from scientific enquiry, you keep looking.. you don't dogmatically fill in the blanks with imagination & speculation.

 

I will leave you with that which you so obviously do not grasp:
"Laws of Thermodynamics

Energy exists in many forms, such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy. Energy is the ability to bring about change or to do work. Thermodynamics is the study of energy.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. Click here for another page (developed by Dr. John Pratte, Clayton State Univ., GA) covering thermodynamics.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die."

Our planet is constantly bombarded with outside energy (see SUN), and is thus an open system dependent upon outside energies to function. pretending this is not the case does not change reality as seen by science, it is only changed in your mind and thoughts. Your interpretation on the 2nd law is so poorly crafted that is literally negates the concept.

I am left to consider your opinions on this inadequate....if not humorous.

 

Did you even read my previous post?

I am left to wonder what posts or threads you have been reading.. certainly not mine, it seems. You clever rebuttal does not apply, & you are still left with those pesky laws of the universe to deal with. They do not respond to ridicule or dismissal. Reviling your refrigerator when it breaks down will not impress the laws of physics.

BTW, what is 'my interpretation' of the 2nd law, that you seem to think is so poorly crafted? You pounce on my post with a gleeful 'gotcha!' reply, but don't address anything i've said. Are you arguing with someone else? Yourself? An imaginary friend?

No, you're good & quick with ridicule & diversions, but addressing science is not your strong point. You should stick with progressive agenda baiting & emotional appeals.. you don't even need an appearance of the scientific method to make those work. But if you want any respect in a scientific discussion, you need to keep on topic, rebut the points with facts, & use clear, solid logic. Shouting, jumping up & down, table pounding & hysterical laughter are not good tools in a scientific discussion. Those are great in reality shows, though.

 

You're not missing anything, herk.. let's look at some other 'evidences' for your premises:
1. What are 'telomeres'?
simple answer, from wiki:
"A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at each end of a chromatid, which protects the end of the chromosome from deterioration or from fusion with neighboring chromosomes. Its name is derived from the Greek nouns telos (τέλο&#962 'end' and merοs (μέρος, root: με&#961 'part.' Telomere regions deter the degradation of genes near the ends of chromosomes by allowing chromosome ends to shorten, which necessarily occurs during chromosome replication.[1] Without telomeres, the genomes would progressively lose information and be truncated after cell division because the synthesis of Okazaki fragments requires RNA primers attaching ahead on the lagging strand. Over time, due to each cell division, the telomere ends become shorter.[2]
During cell division, enzymes that duplicate DNA cannot continue their duplication all the way to the end of chromosomes. If cells divided without telomeres, they would lose the ends of their chromosomes, and the necessary information they contain. The telomeres are disposable buffers blocking the ends of the chromosomes, are consumed during cell division, and are replenished by an enzyme, telomerase reverse transcriptase."

Telomeres show the 'decay' of dna structure, during replication. They protect the loss of critical information, by keeping some 'disposable' material available. Herk's claim of a natural 'degrading' is true. ..and btw, telomeres don't allow new genetic material to attach, spontaneously, to the rest of the dna chain.

2. loss of traits/variability. The more species isolate, the less variability they display. Sometimes they become so isolated that they no longer can reproduce with their cousin species.. tigers & lions, horses & donkeys, fruit flies by experiment. They do not add variability, but become so limited in their variability that changes in their environment can spell extinction. This is observable, testable, reality. We do not see traits added, to make up for lost ones. We see isolation & reduced variability. That indicates a reduction in available genetic information, which is a degradation.

3. Mutations either produce negative or neutral changes in the genetic structure. Simple variations are observed, varying color, & other cosmetic differences. Central structural differences are not affected, & IF they do mutate to such an extent to damage the chromosome, it is fatal to the cell or group of cells.. & by extension, the organism. Some cancers are caused by point mutations. sickle cell anemia & cystic fibrosis, as well.

The premise of general degrading of living things, along with less variability in current life forms, is visible in recent history, as well as the numerous species lost to extinction. It is also consistent with the laws of entropy & the moving to simpler states. Life works hard to replicate itself, & cannot do it perfectly. There are not only embedded limitations within the dna, restricting the advent of new traits, but there are traits that are lost from offshoot families, some never to be seen again, except in fossils. This is something observable, & logical with the rest of scientific discovery. Neither matter nor energy, nor life increases in complexity.. that is contrary to all natural law.

 

there is no further point...goodbye.

 

There is no "decay" of DNA....a mutation to the gnome is a change in information. Period. The evolution of certain cave fish to no longer have eyes, is not a decay, it's a change in the information. It's not "decay"

Of course, you need to sell the "decay" idea to prop up your strawman SLOT argument.

 

You are both ‘somewhat‘, kinda’… wrong- oh~! …Well, IMO. If member tecoyah had said the earth is an open system in regards to energy only, that would be ‘more correct‘ statement. Really, the entire question is too vague, because no one clarified if you are referring a closed/open system as it applies to geology, chemistry or the many other disciplines of science etc! For example, in chemistry a closed system is a type of thermodynamic system where mass is conserved in the parameters (framework) of the system but energy can come into the system or ‘leave’ without interference*. As far as earth taken as a whole is concerned, consider that materials are constantly exchanged in the lithosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere, etc**. So the earth taken as a whole is a closed system which means IMHO usfan is more correct. The really big question? Is the universe an open or closed system.

source and validating notes;

(1)....*http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryglossary/g/Closed-System-Definition.htm

(2)...** www.uvm.edu/~cmehrten/.../earthhist/Earth Closed System.pdf


reva

 

I think the ‘decay’ word wasn't meant to be a precise science-ease’ term judging by some other Knowledgeable statements made.

reva

 

If you would have been paying attention, you'd notice that I have already replied at great length with plenty of information. I didn't feel like repeating myself, so I cut down the responses.

Get over yourself. I've already been over this with you. The main purpose of that site is to provide actual facts and scientific information for the purpose of debunking evolutionary denier bull(*)(*)(*)(*). It is a wealth of useful data. Take a look, perhaps you'll actually learn something. Or is that what you're afraid of?

I sure do. I'm not one of those people who just believes the first thing he hears, nor do I make a decision/form an opinion on something without understanding all the arguments.

Of course it uses the same arguments. One, they're still correct, and two, deniers cling to the same nonsense. If you want to challenge a very well understood phenomenon, you're going to have to step up your game significantly.

People have given you a ton of evidence and information. It isn't our problem that you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore everything.

 

Wow. Did you even read what you quoted? The whole purpose of telomeres is to prevent decay. As in, there is none. So no, sorry, Herk was not correct.

No. To all of it. Just no.

I don't get how someone can be so confident in themselves, yet be so utterly wrong. And not "opinion" or "belief" wrong, but factually and evidentially wrong.

Read a modern biology book, please.

 

Other than very rare examples, for example the CPT violatoin of K mesons, our natural World is as usafan stated. Processes seek equilibrium, they do not increase in complexity, certainly not spontaneously. I don't pretend to be a geneticist, but there is one who authored a book "Genetic Entropy" the mystery of the human genome. The man was highly criticised, his character raked over the coals for giving a very compelling hypothesis that indeed human DNA is degrading with each generation. So how did complex life forms emerge when what appears to be happening is the move from a high order to low order?

It's a compelling argument.

Why should not question Darwin's theory? It was written 200 years ago long before the technological advances that allow us to peer into the genome of species...where evolution is actuallyh going on. Darwin merely observed the results, the variance in species derived from an isolated area, the Galapagos islands.

Why should we not question this?

Just over 95% of our universe comes in the shrouded form of dark energy and matter that we can neither explain nor directly detect.

What makes anyone so sure about the evolutionary process as theorized by Darwin, when it appears to be a violation of the rest of the natural World which does seek equilibrium as aptly stated by usafan.

 

It seems you are trying to be a peacemaker.. but my point was not accurately summarized. I clearly said, several times, that the earth is an OPEN system. I went on to elaborate on that, explaining exactly what i meant, so there would be no confusion over whether i meant it as a thermodynamics definition, quantum mechanics, or chemical.

I even questioned the 'technically correct' way of thermodynamics omitting energy transfer from their definition. IMO, a one way xfer of energy disqualifies earth as a closed system, even in thermodynamics. The earth sends nothing back to the sun (or minimally so) so there is no 'exchange' that would make it closed for thermodynamics.

I returned a bit of snippyness to tecoyah, who regularly uses ridicule & demeaning language with me. He was clearly mistaken in his rebuttal to my points, but was so eager to say 'gotcha!', he didn't bother to read what i was saying.. or so it seemed.

I am fairly conservative, politically, but am a great fan of real science & the scientific method, so my purpose is to rebut the premise of the OP.

 

..asserted at great length, i would say.. i don't remember any rebuttal with logic or evidence.

1. i can't get over myself. i'm all i have, & i can't stop myself.. i don't like to cloud my brain with drugs or chemicals, so am stuck with my thought processes.
2. I don't remember you, 'going over this' before. We discussed the T.O faq before?
3. It is your opinion that TO provides 'facts & scientific data'. IMO, it is a propaganda site for evolution, ignoring plenty of real science, evidence to the contrary, & conflicts within the theory. Unless you want to get bogged down in a debate over T.O, establishing their credibility as 'unbiased' source of information, i can easily dismiss any reference to them, as you would any reference to a creo site.
4. I'm not afraid of talk.origins.. they have the same look & feel that the 'science' forum has here.. probably some of the same old people.

<yawn> I'm sorry.. did you have an actual argument in that ad hominem?

Telomeres clearly decay. That is their function. Yes, it is to protect the critical information within the dna, but it does not always do it, & sometimes the dna erodes, as well, usually with catastrophic results. The point is, there is NO conflict with genetics & the 2nd law. Even in life, things break down & seek simpler states. Only during the growth period of an organism does entropy seem NOT to apply. But it is there.. lurking.. waiting.. ready to pounce upon its hapless victims & bring them to ruin & destruction.

Outstanding rebuttal!!

No? Just no? Read a book? I have to admit, you got me with these. My arguments are destroyed, & i am left speechless to the power of your reply.

but maybe you're one of the writers of the talk.origins faq.. they use the same brilliant debating techniques to refute their opponents, too!

 

I find macroevolution to be a dubious idea, for which there is no compelling evidence that I'm aware of; and I am unalterably convinced that human beings are not a product of evolution. Nevertheless, the idea that 2LTD has any bearing on the validity of the ToE strikes me as bogus. For those who think otherwise, I have two questions:

1. If there is anything which is neither a closed nor an isolated system, it's a living organism, so what makes you think the law applies in open systems?

2. Since the law is presumably taken as "trivially true" because of experimental results which are measurable and quantifiable, what exactly would one measure and quantify in genetic changes that could possibly contradict the law?

 

Earth is a closed system.
Energy comes in, matter stays out.

An open system implies both matter and energy from outside the Earth's boundarries interact on a regualr basis They don't, just cosmic rays regularly interact..with the occasional meteor of course. Our day to day life here on Earth is on a closed system. We do not see SPONTANEOUS decreases in entropy. Yes, a child grows after birth, it does not decay, but human beings are OPEN systems. What we do not see here on Earth are closed systems experiencing decreases in entropy. Now if we make the assumption evolution itself is an open system, then yes, entropy will decrease for a time as energy and matter is absorbed from another system which simultaneously loses matter and energy...yet the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics still applies even in these OPEN systems here on Earth...we are born, we grow, we age...we die. The life cycle follows the 2nd law, eventually our bodies experience increasing entropy as we age.

 

Pretty sure I said that.

Again, since living organisms are not closed systems, how do you figure 2LTD is germane to evolution, which is about living organisms?

What other "assumption" is possible?

How exactly can a law which is only defined for isolated systems apply to open systems?

Doesn't that mean children who die accidentally violate that law?

And again, what specific quantities have been measured in the life cycle that relate to the law?

 

Oh...MAN!!!! I got you good!!!! LOL!!!!

Of course I know we are on the same side!!

Read post #247!!!!

I gotcha!!! LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

The Earth is a closed system in and of itself, if you simply consider the physical form of the Earth. However, the process of life on Earth is an open system requiring the Sun.

You could be more complex and say that there are other process resident in the Earth that rely on extraterrestrial things like the tides and the Moon, or Earth's revolition around the Sun to begin with.

More so than not, Earth is an open system. I don't think there are any closed systems. Closed systems imply perpetual mechanics.

 

You are correct.

Earth is NOT a closed system.

Cometary impacts are responsible for the Earth's oceans and if it were not for a Mar's sized planetoid impacting the Earth Billions of years ago Earth's core would have cooled down to a point that it could no longer spin thus no EM Field protecting the Earth thus the Earth's Oceans would have been burned off like Mar's Oceans were.

AboveAlpha