Questions about Evolution?

Question

Do you realize Evolution violates the basic laws of science? (1st law of thermodynamics: in a closed system — our universe — energy is neither created nor destroyed, 2nd law of thermodynamics: a closed system will become more random & disordered, and over time energy will be less available, biogenesis: only life can create life, and cause & effect: an observed event can be traced to an event that preceded it)

Why don’t scientists ever talk about the Pre-Cambrian explosion where a myriad of different species of animals appear fully formed — thus contradicting the Evolutionary tree of life?

Red dwarfs are assumed to be faint old stars that should number in the thousands if the universe is billions of years old. However, astronomers have reluctantly admitted that the limited number found fits a biblically young universe of 10,000 years or less

If science were to show that all things were created, would u still believe in Evolution? I kinda wanna know, and I do hav more of these

Try to read all of it. Otherwise, u guys are shooting ur selves in the foot

FYI: the universe IS a CLOSED system

Mathematician I. L. Cohen writes "any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity to rearrange them nor to add to them... The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence - one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in the laboratories.”

And also, Cohen was talking about mutations of DNA that create NEW information. I know that mutations of DNA happen all the time, but no new info is created

Cohen also writes “...After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside super-intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let’s cut the umbilical cord that’s tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back.” (pp. 214-215)

Answer 1

Drink up, everyone!

Yes, elf, the "2nd Law" argument is a drinker.

Answer 2

"closed system "

You posted it yourself and yet you were to stupid to realize that the earth is not a closed system?

"Why don’t scientists ever talk about the Pre-Cambrian explosion where a myriad of different species of animals appear fully formed — thus contradicting the Evolutionary tree of life?"

HUH? I have taken over a half-dozen college level biology courses. Precambrian was probably the single most discussed event in the evolution of life, and it in no way contradicts evolution.

Prior to the cambrian explossion life was soft bodied and did not fossilze well. Only after the cambrian explosion did hard bodied creatures evolve, and fossilization become more abundant.


"Red dwarfs are the most common star type in the Galaxy, at least in the neighborhood of the Sun. Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun, is a red dwarf (Type M5, magnitude 11.0), as are twenty of the next thirty nearest. However, due to their low luminosity, individual red dwarfs cannot easily be observed over the vast intergalactic distances that luminous stars can."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

Try again, skippy.

"If science were to show that all things were created, would u still believe in Evolution?"

Yes, because we know evolution is occuring now. But I would accept that we were created.


Edit:
"FYI: the universe IS a CLOSED system"

Seriously, get an education, or at least read up on the laws of thermodynamics. As a whole the entire universe must be approaching a state of highest entropy. But the law does not preclude any part of the universe from obtaining lower entropy, as long as another part increases. The earth-sun system is the perfect example.

http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

Edit:
"I know that mutations of DNA happen all the time, but no new info is created"

So is that it? All you can do is lie? There are four types of mutations;

deletions
insertions
transpositions
duplications

3 out of 4 of the freely occuring mutations INCREASE the level of "information" found in DNA.

As I said before, get an education, moron.

Answer 3

Well, you certainly have a pack of lies posted.

Yes, the universe is a closed system, and the net mass-energy is constant with increasing entropy. You got two facts right. From there, you made claims that are completely bogus. These are net quantities, and local environments like a planet orbiting a star in that universe can go against the trend. A small amount of the energy the Sun produces becomes ordered although the net tendency is towards disorder. The fact that all life of Earth derived from a single life form does not mean that life cannot arise in a sterile environment in hundreds of millions of years.

The Cambrian (not Pre-Cambrian) explosion is widely discussed by scientists. Numerous factors have been implicated in the relatively rapid increase in fossil life. A possible impact event, massive increase in biomass following the Cryogenian ("snowball Earth") period, and the capability for rapid segmental development afforded by the homeobox genes.

Red dwarfs number in the billions. More would be seen, but they are small dim stars that are not seen at great distances. Young Earth Creationists pretend that the vast numbers of local red dwarf stars are the only ones in the galaxy and then claim there is a shortage.

I'm sure you can cut and paste more lies.

ADDENDUM: Mutations adding information have been documented. I knew you could find more lies.

Answer 4

It doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. You're completely, utterly and foolishly wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Scientists DO speak of the pre-cambrian, and it wasn't an "explosion" of life. The problem is that there aren't many fossils found that have survived that long. And you would have to have no concept at all of evolution to think this contradicts it.

According to scientists there would not be an over-abundance of red dwarfs. Our universe is only 13.7 billion years old - it takes most stars a long time become red dwarfs, especially since most of the stars are relatively young. Stars didn't occur immediately after the big bang, like the earth they developed and many of them are only 5-8 billion years old. So no, there shouldn't be a lot more red dwarfs (though there are already plenty)... The idea that astronomers "reluctantly admitted" a biblical young universe is a complete farce and is frankly too stupid for someone like you to be believing in. Take astronomy 101 at least. Really.

EDIT:

>>"FYI: the universe IS a CLOSED system"

What, science is wrong because some joker on Yahoo says "it's a closed system" in capital letters? That's weak even by creationist standards.

Answer 5

No it does not...

1st law of thermodynamics: in a closed system — our universe — energy is neither created nor destroyed,
-- Right. Your point? Evolution doesn't require energy to be created or destroyed.

2nd law of thermodynamics: a closed system will become more random & disordered
-- Right, but the Earth ain't a closed system, dude. The sun contributes a massive amount of energy.

biogenesis: only life can create life
-- We have no reason to believe that

cause & effect: an observed event can be traced to an event that preceded it
-- Not necessarily

However, astronomers have reluctantly admitted that the limited number found fits a biblically young universe of 10,000 years or less
-- Which astronomers?

[EDIT: The universe may or may not be a closed system but that's irrelevant because you are talking about evolution on EARTH. The Earth is NOT a closed system since energy is flowing into the system from the sun. Even if the universe is closed, regions inside the system can become more organized as long as the system as a whole still becomes less organized.]

Answer 6

The Earth itself is not considered a closed system thermodynamically. It gains constant inputs of energy from an outside source - the sun.

It is true that without constant input from this energy source, evolution and indeed life itself would cease to function, and would fall into entropic decay. It is only by harnessing this energy input that life is able to exist. You do realize that evolution isn't the only thing that 'violates' this basic law? You yourself are doing it by not dissolving into a pile of bones and rotting meat, but rather continuing to live and be metabolically active. Again, it's because it's not a closed system.

Biogenesis is not an actual 'basic law of science'. It is a semantic exercise based on what exactly we define as 'life'. If you can come up with a definitive classification of precisely what is alive and what's not, then maybe we can discuss abiogenesis. Also, abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution itself. The theory of biological evolution explains how life changes (evolves) after it is in place, not how it came about in the first place.

As to cause and effect, it would seem to me that a supernatural creation would be the explanation that defies cause and effect, creating an observed event without a preceding event.

Scientists do talk about the Pre-Cambrian explosion!! They talk about it all the time! How do you think religious scholars heard about it? It certainly isn't mentioned in the Bible! And while there was indeed an adaptive radiation that included every known modern multicellular body plan, they were hardly 'fully formed'. The earliest chordates were barely distinguishable from worms, and many of the groups were bizarre, short-lived variations on the arthropod exoskeletal body style. Far from contradicting the 'Evolutionary tree of life', it is strong evidence for evolution and common descent, showing newly evolved multicellular animals evolving into multiple niches, with the luckiest, strongest, most stable groups surviving to produce descendants and unlucky, weak, unstable groups going extinct. Also, the 'explosion' took place over the course of 50 million years or more - not quite the magical 'poof' of supernatural creation's six days.

I'm not familiar with the red dwarf star data, since I'm not an astronomer, but there is plenty of other evidence indicating that the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and in any case the age of the Earth itself doesn't have anything to do with the actual theory of biological evolution.

If science were indeed to show that all things were created, then no, I would not accept evolution as the explanation for the existence and diversity of life on Earth. However, science does not show any evidence for creation, and does show hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence supporting evolution, therefore it remains the scientifically accepted explanation.

So where's your 'more of these'?

Answer 7

energy isn't created or destroyed, but can be transferred. And the sun is sure transferring a lot of energy to the earth. The earth is receiving a lot of energy from the sun. Evolution can't be looked at from the universe perspective, just a planet perspective, which isn't a closed system.

You misunderstand the 2nd law. A snowflake is an example of order arising from disorder. What the 2nd law really means is that heat from and ice cube wont transfer to a warm room. Heat can only flow from hot to cold.

Not enough is known about the Pre-Cambrian explosion to know this.

the universe isn't 10,000 years old. If you believe this you are either ignorant or don't accept science.

Yes, but scientifically, you can't show that something was just created. By the nature of creationism, it can't be scrutinized scientifically.

Answer 8

Scientists have been and are still debating whether the Universe is a closed system or not. Einstein himself said "I should not make up my mind to it until every effort to make headway toward a satisfactory view had proved to be in vain".
Considering recent hubble telescope images show that the universe continues to expand, there is good evidence that it may just be an open system.

The earth itself is certainly not a closed system, as it exchanges energy with the sun.

You make claims that "astronomers have reluctantly admitted that the limited number found fits a biblically young universe of 10,000 years or less" but I notice that you didn't quote anyone, nor provide links to actual astronomers who have said this.

Honestly, if you're going to argue science, at least use facts and present both sides of an issue. Otherwise, just present the question to those who are going to give you a pat on the head and agree with you.

Answer 9

No it doesn't. This was an exam question in my evolution class :P The law only applies to closed systems. The world did not become ordered by random combinations, mutations occurred randomly and some were favored over others and through natural selection those traits became more common until they became the norm. Evolution is really about adaptation. For example, the flying squirrels developed the "wings" through mutations that were advantageous to them......it wasn't a sudden change but the result of several gradual changes.

You are incorrect--Life on earth is not a closed system.

Answer 10

Why is it that people will accept the advances of science without question until science starts to contradict a book written by primative men thousands of years ago?

What is really interesting, is when science and religon have gone up against each other in the past, science has always won.

Answer 11

Evolution happens. Scientifically undisputed. You can test it yourself if your motivated.

I think you meant Evolution through Natural Selection. So I will address that.

There are many things science still strives to understand. If science was to show that all things were created it still says nothing about whether or not said created items evolve.

In short - Science will continue to try and prove itself wrong on the issue of evolution though natural selection.

As for creation , science will continue to propose ideas and try and disprove them as well.

Religions however will remain un-scientific and only try to prove itself correct.