There is no missing link!

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by mhc_70
I would like to understand how evolutionists' come to terms with the contradiction between the second law of thermodynamics and natural selection?

Because life is desperately striving to exist, doing everything it can to propagate itself, and it is doing a good job of it.

If it were simply a closed system, unconcerned with whether it exists or not, then yes, it would eventually decay to the point of non-existence, but life wants to exist and it can actively work to ensure that it does.

Where did the desire to exist come from to allow it to become an open system?

reply to post by JPhish


I generally find myself opposed to your point of view, just as you are most probably opposed to mine (or would be if you were aware of it!), but I must say I agree with you here. I will, however, defend your right to be able to put your opinions and views forward.

'Copypasta' is unacceptable as a method of debating, ESPECIALLY without providing the source and it does nothing for one's credibility, especially once they have been 'caught out'!

On topic: are we a transitional species? I believe so. Sometimes it is difficult to see the wood for the trees!

Originally posted by Evil Genius
Quite simply. I'll even use a website on your side to prove my point...

Link to Christian Science

It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever.

So for example, all of the elements past iron on the period chart were created in the early stars of the universe, which after exploding left behind the elements needed for life. Like Carl Sagan said, we are all children of stardust.

What you fail to see is that the order of natural selection is still going on because there is still energy enough being put into the system for it to continue. When the sun burns out, that energy will no longer be present and life will disappear with it. So, there is no contradiction, you just haven't waited long enough. "For a time" could mean billions of more years in a universe that might last for another couple hundred billion years.

That is a blanket statement with many holes in it, however, it would be OT to adress them.

I do understand what your saying though, and actually find alot of truth in evolution and natural selection, I just see it more like a creation continuum. Gods creation is constantly evolving according to His will.

Creation, ID and evolution are not exclusive.

Much of science fiction touches the subject of what we will eventually evolve into. Most often it is some form of energy being. But how will we evolve to that point. I think that we have already begun.

In the beginning there was only chemistry.
Chemistry and physics formed the pysical.
The physical evolved to defend and promote chemical constructs.
The physical constructs evolved electrical/chemical impulses to control, defend and promote the physical constructs.
The electrical/chemical impulses impulses evolved to form memes.
Memes use all means necessary to defend and promote themselves.

Evolution has turned. The physical now works to defend and promote memes. Dying and fighting not for survival of kindred physical beings but for thoughts, ideals, knowledge, and beliefs.

These Memes act outside their physical host to create art, books, buildings in their image. That expression has evolved into electronic media. Initially a media like the others that simply recorded and expressed the meme but required physical beings to actually multiply, maintain, and evolve, the meme.

At what point does the media become powerful enough to promote the meme without reliance on the physical hosts?

Hello there yall,

Lets put this 2nd Law of Thermodynamics thing to bed shall we.

Indicator 14: Second law of thermodynamics: Henry Morris wrote: "All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system. This is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics." 11 Evolution teaches the opposite: that entropy decreases and complexity and order increases. Evolution is impossible because it violates the universally accepted second law of thermodynamics.

Rebuttal 14: Creation Scientists often do not quote the full text of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In fact, Morris' conclusion is incorrect. All processes do not exhibit a tendency towards decay and disintegration. It is only the overall entropy (disorder) of the universe which increases. "This means that some parts of a system may indeed become more orderly and complex so long as this increase in order is balanced by an equal or greater decrease in order elsewhere. This, of course, is exactly what living things do -- as they grow and evolve they use enormous amounts of energy (usually in the form of food), producing a thermodynamic balance in the system as a whole. The second law no more forbids evolution than it forbids a tiny seed from growing into a larger, more complex tree. Both processes require energy to proceed, and both are in perfect accordance with the laws of thermodynamics." 12 There are many examples on earth in which entropy decreases and order increases:

The formation of snowflakes
Formation of salt crystals.
Seeds becoming plants.
Eggs becoming Chickens.`

Evolution of species of life is one more example. Evolution of plant and animal species on earth was and is made possible by the rise in entropy in the sun. That is, the heat and illumination from the sun makes life on earth possible; it makes it possible for seeds to grow into trees, and for simple organisms to evolve into more complex species. But the sun can only accomplish this by gradually running down. Billions of years from now, the sun's entropy will win out and the sun will fail. Talk Origins has a full treatment of this topic online.

Source and excellent information

TALK ORIGINS for the full treatment

Please, take some time to have a look through some of the material on these sites.

Some of it is hard reading, some of it is laid out simply and is easy to read.

It is clearly shown the argument- that evolution contradicts the 2nd Law - comes from a lack of understanding or a misinterpratation (deliberate or otherwise) of the 2nd Law itself.

I'm not saying that evolution or creation is the answer, but we must deny ignorance in our search for the truth.

Natural selection is a finely tuned machine. It is no coincidence that things change over time, not necessarily into more complex organisms, but into more suited organisms.

If most of a population of ducks have a gene that makes them nearly blind, then the fully sighted are going to have more successful lives- they wont get shot so easy- and would, on the whole, produce a lot more offspring than the mostly blind ducks.

Over time the 'blinding gene' would become so rare as to disappear all together and the population would go from mostly blind to mostly sighted.

It's no coincidence that the duck population over time 'weeded out' the hindrance and became better suited and adapted to their environment.

This is certainly clear to see when the gene in question is a gene for a superior camouflage.

The next step is when a mutation comes into play. It will go through the natural selection process and, in fact, take NS further than it could go in the way of biodiversity than it could go without the mutations.


On the topic of the beginning of life:
It happened so long ago that it is almost impossible to study- more so that the beginning of the universe because life recycles the previous generations.

But it doesn't matter, the study of how organic matter becomes 'live' is not the science of evolution, the study of 'descent with modification'.

Creationism isn't the study of anything, it's just apologetics and the opposition of evolution. The unanimous declaration of "God did it."

I recant my previous post and thank all of you for the marvelous links of transitional species. I have never seen these presented before, and I just may make a 180 degree turn again (for the third time).



[edit on 13-9-2008 by ATS4dummies]

"The concept, in essence, is fairly straightforward. Let’s say that you have a Species A that existed some time in the past, say, 10 million years ago. Currently, we observe Species C that exists now and shares a lot of the anatomical characters that are seen in fossils of Species A, but which also has several characters that are not seen in Species A. Evolutionary theory predicts that if Species C is descended from Species A, then there is likely a Species B which has more characteristics in common with Species C than Species A. We refer to Species B as a transitional species, but this is only in the context of the difference between Species A and C. These transitional species are often referred to as “missing links” because they are hypothesized to exist, given the fact that fossils are not found one after the other in a continuous line into the past, but are found corresponding to various points in prehistory, which is the reason that gaps exist in the fossil record." Source posted below:
This says it far more succinctly than I can as I tend towards verbosity and while that can be frustrating, I often enjoy it

Essentially, Creationism, as Good Wolf put it, is apologetics and doesn't even stack up when viewed under the microscope of scientific method.

ATS4dummies, I presume you're talking about the 'Cambrian Explosion'...have you looked into the Tommotian fauna (SSF), the soft-bodied Ediacaran Fauna and the works of A. Seilacher and J. Preston Cloud, among others? They are good places to start.

I will attempt to do some research into this period when I can, using the databases I have available at work, and will post some more on this by weeks end.



[edit on 13/9/08 by ChChKiwi]

Originally posted by ATS4dummies

Here's the real definition of a transitional species:
A fossil of a reptile changing into a mammal
A fossil of an asexual plant turning (like a fern) turning into a sexual plant (like a lilly)
A fossil of a fish turning into a mammal.

I'll give a hint: there aren't any.

Are you implying here that a "transitional fossil" is a fossil of a lifeform in the actual process of, for example, developing lungs whilst the gills disapear or in the process of it's fins morphing into legs?

Heres something more for you ATSfordummies,

On transitional species and this on origins in general.


I'm glad to see that some people are able to see things from the other side of the fence. I used to be a creationist my self, after all.

[edit on 9/13/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
This reveals a profound lack of understanding on your part.

If the races of humans (and there are far more than three) had descended from three different types of creature, they would not be able to interbreed.

All races of man are just that: man.

Obviously you haven't heard about the Koolakamba.

Another unknown ape (the Koolakamba) has been reported in Africa and claimed to be a Gorilla/Chimp hybrid. Larger, flatter faced, larger skulled and more bipedal than a chimp, it may also be a mutation, in which case we are witnessing evolution in action. According to von Koppenfels in 1881: “I believe it is proved that there are crosses between the male Troglodytes gorilla and the female Troglodytes niger, but for reasons easily understood, there are none in the opposite direction. I have in my possession positive proof of this. This settles all the questions about the gorilla, chimpanzee, Kooloo Kamba, N’schigo, M’bouve, the Sokos, Baboos, etc”. Yerkes reported several "unclassifiable apes" with features intermediate between chimpanzee and gorilla in his 1929 book "A Study of Anthropoid Life".

I see where you're going with that but I noticed that at the top of the page it said in big words 'Primates (excluding humans)'

But it also said that some of these 'hybrids' are just thought to be one species that looks like it's half another. But It's not the first time that a species has been identified that seems to appear to be a hybrid of two species but is in fact it's own species.

I'm of course speaking of the example in the OP:

But more than that, the theory [creation] also demanded that we find one “half-way” between humans and other apes in terms of morphology. We found exactly that too way back in 1974. Australopithecus afarensis proved to be a fully bi-pedal ape who’s hands, feet, teeth, pelvis, skull, and other physical details were exactly what creationists challenged us to find, yet they’re still pretending we never found it.

After explaining that evolution doesn't produce organisms that are hybrids of two present species, but we got it anyway. lol.

I've seen on tv, creationists say that there are no "Croco-ducks" as if that is what the theory of evolution suggests. So you just aren't going to get hybrid like that but they happen anyway. Look at the Lungfish or the Platypus, they seem like hybrids but they really aren't.


One aspect of evolution is the provenance of roles in the ecosystem. The role of lion [hunter/scavenger], vulture [stalker/scavenger], sheep [low-level-consumers/prey-of-higher-levels] etc. that are roles that keep being played out by many different species over the millennia. Because these are very functional roles/niches, they keep getting filled. For this reason, when you look at one niche and all the species that filled it over time, you'll see the same traits emerging each time, and that's the environmental pressures that are very consistent shaping the same kind of organism each time a new species fills the niche. That's called convergent evolution.

You could time travel 5 million years into the future and say, "Well there is the equivalent lion, and vulture and the gazelle etc..."

I'm probably not explaining it as best as it could be. TO WIKIPEDIA!!!

[edit on 9/14/2008 by Good Wolf]

If it's no coincidence, that means it's being regulated, which means nature has a will, which means it should be a consciousness, which means evolution is no disprove of God or any other spiritual phenomenon.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
It does if it goes through enough stages.

If you add up the small changes, over millions of years, they become big changes.

Not even Dawkins subscribes to that utterly impossible idea anymore and this is why:

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate below. It is the story of a town.

One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form.

When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.

Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by chance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.

If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about. If you possess technical knowledge and are fairly conversant with the subject, you can even write an extremely "scientific" book of a few volumes stating your theories about "the evolutionary process of a sewage system and its uniformity with the present structures." You may well be honored with academic awards for your clever studies, and may consider yourself a genius, shedding light on the nature of humanity.

Originally posted by dave420

That is not sound science. Care to explain what you are talking about?

Evolution still stands as the best, and only, explanation of how species came to be, including us. No evidence has been found that can possibly topple it, and so much evidence has been found that demonstrates it to be accurate. Unlike creationism, which has no evidence for it except anecdotal evidence in a self-referencing book written by bronze-age farmers.

In 1984, in Eichstätt (Germany), at the International Archaeopteryx Conference, there was a major world-wide gathering of scientists who specialized in avian (bird) evolution. The outcomes of their meetings were that they disagreed on just about everything about the creature, and they had broad agreement amongst themselves that Archaeopteryx was a true bird.


It has been stated that the early primates who moved to the trees to escape predators changed their anatomy. They are said to have not needed a keen sense of smell, so their nose (olfactory organs)
radically reduced in size. Also, as there was little danger from predators, their teeth reduced to being small and simple.

It is a common fallacy that an organ that is not needed is reduced and eventually discarded by evolution. To do this, evolution must remove the genes for that structure, but there is no known selection mechanism to do this.Almost every expert today agrees that each Peking Man had been eaten and killed by human hunters. Each skull had been bashed inwards in a way that would allow the brain to be taken out.

There were no bodies at the site, which logically leads to the conclusion that the heads were brought there to eat. All these facts indicate that Sinanthropus was a variety of ape which is now extinct.

The world famous fossil, Java Man , was re-constructed in 1891 from just a thigh bone and a skull cap. Dr Eugene Dubois, the discoverer, found the thigh bone 15 metres away from the skull cap, yet he combined them together into the one individual.


Piltdown Man, of which only skull fragments were found, was proved to be a hoax,, Gee, evolutionist's pulling off another hoax to keep that silly Darwinian evolution theory alive,, now isn't that unusuaL LOL.

in 1982. An examination of the real bones showed that the teeth had been filed down. Collagen tests conducted more recently, show that the jaw came from an orangutan. Nebraska Man was constructed from just one tooth, and many scientists have differed with its discoverer's classification. Over successive years, more teeth were found, and were
positively identified as belonging to an extinct pig.

Nebraska Man never existed, and can never be used to prove human evolution. Boxgrove Man', a recently discovered fossil, has been dubbed the 'oldest European'. It has been described as a hairy ape-like creature by the Chief Government Archaeologist at the excavation. These descriptions have been made from hand tools found at the site, and from a single shin-bone which has both ends missing. The fossil has been assigned the age of 500,000 years old, yet the shin-bone is indistinguishable from that of a modern human.

Southwest Colorado Man’ was another mythical human predecessor now not considered as proof of human evolution. This individual was constructed from a tooth which is now believed to have come from a horse. from the actual structure of the chromosome we can demonstrate that the human species did not come from a progressive humanisation of a pre-human." The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid ape-man that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone As an example of the fact that evolution is not scientifically proven, there are not one, but twenty different genealogical trees of the so-called horse fossil series alone

One of the most popular myths of human evolution is that stone tools testify to the increasing mental and conceptual abilities of humans as they evolved. They were once considered an almost independent confirmation of evolutionary development. For example, Acheulean tools were associated with Homo erectus, and Oldowan tools with Homo habilis. However, now, almost every basic style of tool has been found with almost every category of human Fossilised human remains have been recently discovered in Tanzania. They have been dated as 6 million years old. This is older than all the fossil remains of Homo erectus and the Australopithecines, which are believed to be the evolutionary 'predecessors' of humans.


gee you'd think these "experts" (Con Men) in the evolutionary sciences could get past their tawdry deceptions and specious means of substantiating that junk science they call "the best thing we have so far" WRONG is Wrong in any language and or / science. Dave I suggest it is YOU who is the one in need of more education but a simple course in math and science with a honest and objective method of obtaining an impartial conclusion isn't something you are prone to doing on these boards. As usual we see you posturing then belittling then ridiculing the "bronze age book" ho hum same old sound bytes but no substance no credibility to your answers and certainly no "clear" understanding" of Biology academically or otherwise. You simply put out the same old Darwininan canards that have become the patent posted puffery of pedantic promoters of a long dead theory debunked and never allowed to let die its just due death among the stacked heap of bogus biobabble passed off as so called scientific fact when the fact is, evolution should be removed from science and moved to philosophy or made into a new religion people seem to worship it the same.




[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]

reply to post by TALIN


Ok.... so show how the other fossils of a large variety of creatures that show general change in form over time are fake.
Yes, very good. You've shown than known hoaxes are Hoaxes.
There are several in Creationism as well, and yes they get trotted out by some Evolutionists as well, on occasion.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by TALIN

 

Ok.... so show how the other fossils of a large variety of creatures that show general change in form over time are fake.
Yes, very good. You've shown than known hoaxes are Hoaxes.
There are several in Creationism as well, and yes they get trotted out by some Evolutionists as well, on occasion.

Give me an example and I know unequivocally, I can shed a light of truth to debunk that it is in fact NOT a transitional form of ANY KIND. I certainly believe I have seen em all in this regard and none have stood up to scrutiny having been so much the subjective opinions of a science desperate to keep it self from finally hitting the skids of school urban legends, a myth a mocked up mucked up mutating theory in its own right but one with no REAL substance and a mountain of old relics they call evidence they have intentionally procrastinated about finally removing from the public schools text books as fake, frauds or faux and all under the heading of fiction.

People like Dave are constantly criticisizing creationism when that old bronze age book he keeps mocking, knew BACK THEN what we know scientifically today and can be tested and observed. The fact is the old book was dead on correct Selection and design.

Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selections and mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed,, However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information. Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

Just check your own gonads and ask yourself what "kind" of seed do you have? Human Seed, and with Daves Logic ( if you want to insult logic) the idea is absurd we would have so many variations of wierd "appendages" digits, perhaps we would see wings budding from our knee caps on certain individuals.

As I suggested, give me the transitional form and Ill show you that they can make bones sing any song they want and that is EXACTLY what they have done for so many years it should be criminal






[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]

reply to post by TALIN


Ok, let's go with cetaceans.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is no God!!!!!!

There is no evidence, proof, any reason to believe in...

God

Jesus Christ Miracle worker

Creationism

Unicorns


but continue pointing to what you think is one loophole in a very long chain of rather compelling evidence.

Let me try this again....

Anyone that can bring forth as much evidence and tangible real world information that supports their opposing theory, please please please wont you come forward? I feel safe the response will be the same as the last time I asked this.

...

...


...


...

Originally posted by TALIN

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by TALIN

 

Ok.... so show how the other fossils of a large variety of creatures that show general change in form over time are fake.
Yes, very good. You've shown than known hoaxes are Hoaxes.
There are several in Creationism as well, and yes they get trotted out by some Evolutionists as well, on occasion.

Give me an example and I know unequivocally, I can shed a light of truth to debunk that it is in fact NOT a transitional form of ANY KIND. I certainly believe I have seen em all in this regard and none have stood up to scrutiny having been so much the subjective opinions of a science desperate to keep it self from finally hitting the skids of school urban legends, a myth a mocked up mucked up mutating theory in its own right but one with no REAL substance and a mountain of old relics they call evidence they have intentionally procrastinated about finally removing from the public schools text books as fake, frauds or faux and all under the heading of fiction.

People like Dave are constantly criticisizing creationism when that old bronze age book he keeps mocking, knew BACK THEN what we know scientifically today and can be tested and observed. The fact is the old book was dead on correct Selection and design.

Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA. Dawkins believes that natural selections and mutations (blind, purposeless copying mistakes in this DNA) together provide the mechanism for producing the vast amounts of information responsible for the design in living things.

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed,, However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information. Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

Just check your own gonads and ask yourself what "kind" of seed do you have? Human Seed, and with Daves Logic ( if you want to insult logic) the idea is absurd we would have so many variations of wierd "appendages" digits, perhaps we would see wings budding from our knee caps on certain individuals.

As I suggested, give me the transitional form and Ill show you that they can make bones sing any song they want and that is EXACTLY what they have done for so many years it should be criminal






[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]

So then I suppose god created all the superviruses all that time ago and was just holding them someplace special until we got to the point where it would make sense that they mutated around current treatment methods right? Remember, you said that our genes cannot provide new info, so was God just waiting for us to develop antiviruls before helping us find their resistant counterparts or did perhaps, some new information make its way out.

Please explain to me what the bible has ever been proven to be right about that we could not know then, but science has found today. And please do not use some new translation or interpretation to suit you. Just show us what the bible said.