If you believe that it violates one, please state the specific law, then show specifically how it violates the law. If you wish to demonstrate more than one, state each law, followed by the specific violations to that law.
This is about biological evolution. Please confine the answers to the question and do not discuss cosmology or origin of life. Please answer directly, and if using cut & paste, be sure that the material follows the requested format.
2007-08-16 09:27:46 · 11 answers · asked by novangelis 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This is about biological evolution. As there is no mechanistic distinction or even a clear dividing line between microevolution and macroevolution, it applies to both.
2007-08-16 09:44:01 · update #1
D2T,
Your quote fragments are meaningless. All that was said is that the second law is in force in an open system. If the system is receiving usable energy, it can overcome that much entropy. That is referred to as entropy balance for open systems. I'm afraid that was all that the quote was discussing.
If this did not occur, not only would evolution be impossible, but life would be impossible. Life requires food energy to overcome the tendency to disorder.
2007-08-16 18:18:39 · update #2
faoi shíocháin,
I asked people not to discuss origin of life and confine the discussion to biological evolution.
2007-08-17 05:57:31 · update #3
Obviously none. Scientific theory doesn't violate prior knowledge.
2007-08-16 09:59:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
How about physics? Assuming that everything that existed before life was just matter, there was only the law of physics.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
What action could have caused a glob of matter to develop into a highly organized structure that has a specific purpose in a complex ecosystem? What was this a reaction to. Matter is perfectly content being just matter. Its really just a question of probability.
2007-08-16 20:33:52 · answer #2 · answered by ☺☻☺☻☺☻ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It violates the law of credulity among Creationists who believe that if four legged animals evolved into two legged animals, there should be fossils of three legged animals. This is a very serious law for anyone to try tampering with.
2007-08-16 11:15:50 · answer #3 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
None, unless you are D2T, and are able to cram every sentence with ignorance. He doesn't know what entropy is or how it works. He even claims that the sun giving off heat to the earth is argued as decreased entropy.
2007-08-16 10:06:35 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
My very own set of favorites comes from "i don't have sufficient faith To Be An Atheist" by ability of Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. They argue from the anthropic concept, and use what they call "anthropic constants" (a term that when I google it, turns up very few hits aside from creationist web pages). of their financial disaster relating to the anthropic constants (even if that even ability in the tip), they make the claims that oxygen stages, carbon dioxide stages, water vapor stages, gravity, temperature, are all precisely tuned to interrupt-neck precision. as an occasion, they argue that if the stress of gravity have been .00000000000000001 (or something like that) extra or much less, existence might desire to no longer exist. Or particularly? we've satellite tv for pc archives that tutor extra desirable gravitational fluctuations than that on earth. yet aside from that, they thoroughly ignore relating to the courting between "anthropic constants" (as an occasion, the courting between water vapor and and CO2 in the greenhouse result). in addition they ignore approximately that existence DID upward push up on earth in the previous there replaced into oxygen in the ambience (we call this the Hadean epoch). It replaced into those childhood types that contributed to oxygen stages in the ambience that make existence as all of us realize it a threat. the main laughable area of all that's that for "evidence," the authors tell the tale of the catastrophic platforms failure of Apollo 13...yet did no longer relate it to what they have been certainly claiming. the finished financial disaster of almost 15 pages (provide or take) got here right down to a million paragraph of claims and 14 a million/2 pages of beside the point filler. To think of: while i replaced into youthful, I fell for those issues.
2016-10-02 11:31:47 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 2nd Law of Themodynamics.
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
Is that better?
2007-08-16 10:01:18 · answer #6 · answered by D2T 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
Oh oh, here come the ignorant comments about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, by those who don't even know what it means.
2007-08-16 09:36:56 · answer #7 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
angelpurplewings: You do realize the link you posted completele debunks your 2nd LofTD argument, don't you?
ROTFLMAO!
2007-08-16 10:05:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
2nd law of thermodyamics
better to ask what laws does it follow?
2007-08-16 09:34:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
ooops, i didn't know scientists have caught evolution on video. is it on youtube now?
2007-08-16 09:34:28 · answer #10 · answered by Juan Espera De Dios No Mas 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋