Pharyngula

Entropy and evolution

Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research

One of the oldest canards in the creationists’ book is the claim that evolution must be false because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, or the principle that, as they put it, everything must go from order to disorder. One of the more persistent perpetrators of this kind of sloppy thinking is Henry Morris, and few creationists today seem able to get beyond this error.

Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes, as well as chemical and physical processes. The interesting question is: “How does a real biological process, which goes from order to disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?” Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists do.

Especially is such a question vital, when we are thinking of evolution as a growth process on the grand scale from atom to Adam and from particle to people. This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.

As most biologists get a fair amount of training in chemistry, I’m afraid he’s wrong on one bit of slander there: we do not ignore entropy, and are in fact better informed on it than most creationists, as is clearly shown by their continued use of this bad argument. I usually rebut this claim about the second law in a qualitative way, and by example — it’s obvious that the second law does not state that nothing can ever increase in order, but only that an decrease in one part must be accompanied by a greater increase in entropy in another. Two gametes, for instance, can fuse and begin a complicated process in development that represents a long-term local decrease in entropy, but at the same time that embryo is pumping heat out into its environment and increasing the entropy of the surrounding bit of the world.

It’s a very bad argument they are making, but let’s consider just the last sentence of the quote above.

This represents in absolutely gigantic increase in order and complexity, and is clearly out of place altogether in the context of the Second Law.

A “gigantic increase in order and complexity” … how interesting. How much of an increase? Can we get some numbers for that?

Daniel Styer has published an eminently useful article on “Entropy and Evolution” that does exactly that — he makes some quantitative estimates of how much entropy might be decreased by the process of evolution. I knew we kept physicists around for something; they are so useful for filling in the tricky details.

The article nicely summarizes the general problems with the creationist claim. They confuse the metaphor of ‘disorder’ for the actual phenomenon of entropy; they seem to have an absolutist notion that the second law prohibits all decreases in entropy; and they generally lack any quantitative notion of how entropy actually works. The cool part of this particular article, though, is that he makes an estimate of exactly how much entropy is decreased by the process of evolution.

First he estimates, very generously, how much entropy is decreased per individual. If we assume each individual is 1000 times “more improbable” than its ancestor one century ago, that is, that we are specified a thousand times more precisely than our great-grandparents (obviously a ludicrously high over-estimate, but he’s trying to give every advantage to the creationists here), then we can describe the reduction in the number of microstates in the modern organism as:

i-c0218e37d26a7638417f556b4e668d64-microstates.jpg

Now I’m strolling into dangerous ground for us poor biologists, since this is a mathematical argument, but really, this is simple enough for me to understand. We know the statistical definition of entropy:

i-cee140176f0d54e5df841106965edeba-entropy.jpg

In the formula above, kB is the Boltzmann constant. We can just plug in our estimated (grossly overestimated!) value for Ω, have fun with a little algebra, and presto, a measure of the change in entropy per individual per century emerges.

i-fe99f87a61a6afae1fe0d0de2fe265b5-change_in_entropy.jpg

Centuries are awkward units, so Styer converts that to something more conventional: the entropy change per second is -3.02 x 10-30 J/K. There are, of course, a lot of individual organisms on the planet, so that number needs to be multiplied by the total number of evolving organism, which, again, we charitably overestimate at 1032, most of which are prokaryotes, of course. The final result is a number that tells us the total change in entropy of the planet caused by evolution each second:

-302 J/K

What does that number mean? We need a context. Styer also estimates the Earth’s total entropy throughput per second, that is, the total flux involved from absorption of the sun’s energy and re-radiation of heat out into space. It’s a slightly bigger number:

420 x 1012 J/K

To spell it out, there’s about a trillion times more entropy flux available than is required for evolution. The degree by which earth’s entropy is reduced by the action of evolutionary processes is miniscule relative to the amount that the entropy of the cosmic microwave background is increased.

This is very cool and very clear. I’m folding up my copy of Styer’s paper and tucking it into my copy of The Counter-Creationism Handbook, where it will come in handy.


Styer DF (2008) Entropy and evolution. Am J Phys 76(11):1031-1033.

Comments

  1. #1 Sarcastro
    November 10, 2008

    I usually rebut this claim about the second law in a qualitative way, and by example…

    I just point at the sun.

  2. #2 gribley
    November 10, 2008

    Sarcastro is right — the simplest rebuttal is to point out that the Second Law applies to a closed system. I don’t know why creationists don’t get that; probably they just hope that their target audience won’t pick up on it.

    That said, great post about a great topic! I’m glad the physicists (among whom I used to be numbered) are proving useful.

    For those of us interested in reading the original paper, I found it here [PDF].

  3. #3 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 10, 2008

    Paging Mr. Stimpson.

  4. #4 Nerd of Redhead
    November 10, 2008

    All self respecting scientists know the entropy argument was bunk, but it is always nice to see some numerical values. Twelve orders of magnitude. Well, this will make the creationist argument a trillion times more silly than before, but what do they care? The entropy lie will still be repeated.

  5. #5 ryanm
    November 10, 2008

    The biggest obstacle for the cretinists seems to be, as has been stated a million times before, local vs. total decreases in entropy. If there couldn’t be local decreases in entropy, then how could we ever build a bridge, skyscraper, type a letter, or do anything for that matter? Physics would be violated any time us humans tried to create complexity in this world, and surely the godbots don’t think this is happening, right?

  6. #6 Guy G
    November 10, 2008

    Nice. Just last week I was wondering what sort of numbers could be applicable for the entropy argument. I must say I’m very impressed with just how big those numbers are.

  7. #7 Ibid
    November 10, 2008

    Creationists always try to use the second law,
    to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
    The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
    only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
    The earth’s not a closed system’ it’s powered by the sun,
    so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
    That, in a nutshell, is what entropy’s about,
    you’re now down with a discount.

    –copy pasta from mchawking.com

  8. #8 Glen Davidson
    November 10, 2008

    One of their biggest mistakes is in confusing complexity and order.

    Entropy is always increasing complexity, some of which does show up in evolution as variety (though natural selection ruthlessly hacks away at much variation). Increasing order, in fact, is not something that we see in evolution, or at least it can’t be quantified as such.

    Of course Granville Stewart yammers on about all this, making the factual point that the sun’s input of energy doesn’t mean that just anything can happen–like a PC randomly self-assembling over the time the earth has existed. Well of course that’s true, but evolution is readily fueled by the sun’s input.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  9. #9 Frasque
    November 10, 2008

    I wonder how they account for digestion.

  10. #10 raven
    November 10, 2008

    One of the oldest canards in the creationists’ book is the claim that evolution must be false because it violates the second law of thermodynamics, or the principle that, as they put it, everything must go from order to disorder.

    It does? That means life is impossible.

    1. Farmers supposedly plant seeds every spring. These little oblong objects put in the dirt turn into corn, wheat, and other plants which we eat, photosynthetic, self reproducing, evolving machines that turn sunlight, CO2, and water into organized matter. Obvious fairy tale.

    2. Supposedly in animals and higher primates (humans), two haploid cells fuse to form a zygote. 20 years later, the zygote weighs 160 lbs and wants more money for college and plans to fuse haploid cells with some other multikilogram higher primate to make more zygotes. Another fairy tale that violates the second law and clearly impossible.

  11. #11 maria
    November 10, 2008

    If you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it. I’ve heard this argument refuted so often that I’m amazed that it still come up.

    Thank you for writing this blog.

  12. #12 Sean Carroll
    November 10, 2008

    Darn it, that’s a nice little calculation. Wish I had thought of doing it first.

    It’s not strictly right, as you point out, as he’s trying to give the creationists every benefit. But there is a problem in identifying the “reduction in the number of microstates” from one generation to another, because it’s not precisely the same degrees of freedom being re-arranged. I wonder if it’s possible to fix that part up just a bit. (You’d get the same conclusion, obviously.)

  13. #13 blf
    November 10, 2008

    I just point at the sun.

    It’s probably been excerpted on FSTDT or similar (I’m too lazy to look right now), but some years ago a fundie-nutter argued the closed constraint was obviously bunk because if it was true, then the Earth violated the law because there’d have to be a gigantic source of energy somewhere, and there clearly isn’t. I swear I’m not making this up…!

  14. #14 Owlmirror
    November 10, 2008

    Also: Nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law

    and also:

      Natural selection for least action
    http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/50874678nw60t5l2/

  15. #15 Matt Heath
    November 10, 2008

    raven@10: Exactly! If you read discussions of extra-terrestrial life (say Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot) “life” is more or less defined as “that which locally pumps away entropy” (at least if we treat machines as extensions of the life forms that built them). So, for example, if we found a planet with oxygen and methane in the atmosphere, whatever was replenishing them (however odd to us) would be worth of the name “life”.

  16. #16 SteveM
    November 10, 2008

    here:

    One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn’t possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.

  17. #17 Naked Bunny with a Whip
    November 10, 2008

    The existence of mathematics proves the existence of a mathematics-maker!!! Hah, refuted you!!!

  18. #18 Simong
    November 10, 2008

    I’ve never actually had a creationist try to use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as an argument against evolution. Perhaps I’ve only argued with a better class of nutter, ’cause all it really shows is that the person knows next to nothing about entropy. Generally, I suspect I’d take it as a good indication that any discussion was a waste of my time.

  19. #19 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 10, 2008

    best fstdt quote evah

  20. #20 blf
    November 10, 2008

    SteveM, yep, that’s the “argument” I was thinking of. My jaw is still bouncing off the floor…

  21. #21 Xerxes
    November 10, 2008

    This doesn’t affect the argument at all, but the Earth’s radiation doesn’t go into the cosmic microwave background (the field of photons permeating the universe that have not interacted with anything since the universe became transparent 300ky after the Big Bang), it just goes into the generic photon background. Aliens with large infrared telescopes could observe these photons to determine the Earth’s temperature and maybe get some spectral information about it. Recent experiments have used space probes to look at the Earth’s radiation from far away to see if the signatures of life can be picked out. That might give us a good idea what to look for when examining exoplanets.

  22. #22 genewitch
    November 10, 2008

    way to go pz. I spit coffee out my nose at work on the “trillion times” part.

    Jerk.

    :-D

  23. #23 Randy
    November 10, 2008

    I am SOOOOO downloading that paper right now.

  24. #24 Jim
    November 10, 2008

    Although intended to illustrate a much different point about thermodynamics, Drexler’s Engines of Creation contains an excellent counterexample to the “disorder always increases” myth, which is simple enough that even a creationist might be able to understand it:

    Imagine a bottle having a bottom with a partition, dividing it into two basins. In one sits salt, in the other sits water. A cork plugs the bottle’s neck: this closes the system… The bottle’s contents are in an organized state: their material entropy is not at a maximum–yet.

    Now, pick up the bottle and shake it. Slosh the water into the other basin, swirl it around, dissolve the salt, increase the entropy–go wild!

    …take the bottle and tip it, draining the salty water into one basin. This should make no difference, since the system remains closed. Now set the bottle upright, placing the saltwater side in sunlight and the empty side in shade. Light shines in and heat leaks out, but the system remains as closed as the Earth itself. But watch–the sunlight evaporates water, which condenses in the shade! Fresh water slowly fills the empty basin, leaving the salt behind.

  25. #25 Pete UK
    November 10, 2008

    In the space of a few words, he more or less accepts the validity of physics, chemistry, biology and even geology as sciences, and of course he is upholding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the basis for his argument.

    So he seems to be supporting the scientific method and (most of) its cumulative achievements. But evolution – oh no!

    A bit selective, wouldn’t you say?

  26. #26 O-dot-O
    November 10, 2008

    In this month’s Scientific American: Does Nature Break the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law

  27. #27 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 10, 2008

    Posted by: Sarcastro | November 10, 2008

    I just point at the sun.

    The Commander-in-Chief answers him while chasing a fly
    Saying, “Death to all those who would whimper and cry”
    And dropping a bar bell he points to the sky
    Saving, “The sun’s not yellow it’s chicken”

  28. #28 negentropyeater
    November 10, 2008

    SteveM #16,

    what you might not know, is that the fruitbat who came up with that hilarious statement did manage to add some more inepsies later on, after someone pointed out that the sun was such a source of energy :

    Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn’t explain why the Sun doesn’t count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:

    Is Energy the Key?
    To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun’s energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

    Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

    A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun’s energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers – all beginning from a single seed.

    If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

    What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

    You were born perfect, now I don’t mean perfect like muscly body and everything is the “normal” conditions. I mean perfect as in you haven’t sinned. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the f word.

    “I didn’t explain why the sun doesn’t count”

    It doesn’t get any better than this !

  29. #29 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 10, 2008

    Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:

    READY! SET! FAIL!

  30. #30 Sili
    November 10, 2008

    Aha!

    Since everything has to from order to disorder, it’s perfectly natural to ice to melt! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!!

  31. #31 Les Lane
    November 10, 2008

    Lack of peer review is a unifying feature of pseudosciences. In this regard creationism is indistinguishable from astrology , homeopathy, etc. Effective peer review would cause all these “fields” to quickly disappear.

  32. #32 Desert Son
    November 10, 2008

    negentropyeater at @28:

    Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn’t explain why the Sun doesn’t count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:

    And here I was all set to suggest that the world’s major theistic traditions need to go back to worshiping Ra,
    Ancient Egyptian deity of the sun.

    Ra Ra Ra!
    Sis boom ba!

    No kings,

    Robert

  33. #33 speedwell
    November 10, 2008

    why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

    I seriously think this moron thinks that a tree, say, is “dead” when you cut it down. Any gardener knows that parts of a “dead” plant can be grafted or rooted, “assuming a sufficient supply…”.

    I get much the same level of argumentation from people who believe that you should eat bean sprouts because they are “living” food.

  34. #34 blf
    November 10, 2008

    negentropyeater, I’m glad I put the café down before reading that follow-up. Even so, we need a warning on those sorts of posts. Something like:

    TOYIMPDTCAFCYM…
    Turn Off Your Irony Meter, Put Down The Café, And Firmly Close Your Mouth…

  35. #35 Curt Cameron
    November 10, 2008

    AS IF a creationist would have any hope of understanding entropy calculations!

    The simpler path would just be to point out to them that their second-law argument would also prove that an embryo could never increase in complexity to become an adult. Either their argument is flawed, or we don’t exist.

  36. #36 tsg
    November 10, 2008

    In the space of a few words, he more or less accepts the validity of physics, chemistry, biology and even geology as sciences, and of course he is upholding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the basis for his argument.

    So he seems to be supporting the scientific method and (most of) its cumulative achievements. But evolution – oh no!

    A bit selective, wouldn’t you say?

    This has always bothered me, too. I’ve always wanted to point them at a bunch of Perpetual Motion nutters and say, “these guys think thermodynamics is bunk, so there goes your argument.”

  37. #37 Anthony Popple
    November 10, 2008

    I have had this debate with friends and relatives before.

    I usually ask them if they know of a child who has grown into an adult. If they say yes, I tell them that their argument is therefore clearly wrong.

    To be fair, the argument isn’t wrong so much as it is imcomplete. A thermodynamic argument is necessarily quantitative; you haven’t made the argument until you give real numbers.

  38. #38 Tom
    November 10, 2008

    Boltzmann Constant. Named after Ludwig Boltzmann I believe. My favourite scientist, way ahead of his time. A tragic story too, if you care to look it up – Wikipedia describes him well. Statistical entropy is a cool theory (if you’ll excuse the nerdy pun).

  39. #39 Skeletor
    November 10, 2008

    You can also think of entropy as thermodynamic equilibrium, removing the whole disorder idea all together.

    http://www.entropysite.com/entropy_isnot_disorder.html

  40. #40 Kalirren
    November 10, 2008

    Sounds like a physicist’s argument to me. He’s only looking at organisms, and failing to take into account all of the possible states of the biosphere = (organisms + environment).

    Although if you’re dealing with a creationist that has that deep of a understanding about what a system, whether open or closed, really is, then you may as well go back to pointing at the sun.

    I wouldn’t disseminate that paper. It’s just throwing them ammunition.

  41. #41 rob
    November 10, 2008

    why did the author pick the factor of a 1000 as the ratio of the initial and final entropies? the author writes:

    “I regard this as a very generous rate of evolution, but you may make your own assumption.”

    hmmm…let’s say that the final state is ONE BILLION times as improbable!!! heh, heh, heh…(evil scientist laugh)

    in the calculation, we replace 10^-3 with 10^-9 and get

    k*ln(10^-9)=k(-20.7233)= 3* k(-6.91) = 3 times authors calculation.

    so, by increasing the improbability factor from 1000 to 1 billion, you only change the amount of entropy flux by a factor of 3, which is still much much less than the available entropy flux on the earth.

    with this in mind, one might ask oneself if there is so much entropy flux available why don’t we see advanced species like sharks with frickin’laser beams? how come evolution moves so slowly.

  42. #42 Josh
    November 10, 2008

    Link to the paper by Styer? Googling his name and the title you give only links to this page.

  43. #43 Loren Petrich
    November 10, 2008

    I once saw a similar sort of argument about William Shakespeare and the plays that he had written — how does the entropy decrease of composing his plays compare to the entropy increase of his metabolism?

    We can get a hint by considering the number of bits needed to write down his entire collective works. Project Gutenberg has a collection of his works that is a total of 5458199 bytes of plain-text file. Each byte has 8 bits, making 32749194 bits.

    Entropy = k(boltzmann) * ln(2) * (number of bits) = 3*10^(-16) joules/K

    William Shakespeare likely ate about 2000 food calories / day, which is 100 watts of energy consumption. About 20% of it would be used by his brain; that is 20 watts. His body temperature was 37 C or 98.6 F, meaning that his brain produced metabolic entropy at 0.065 (joules/K)/s.

    This, a few seconds of metabolism result in an entropy gain MUCH greater than the entropy loss of all his works.

  44. #44 Tom
    November 10, 2008

    Another word about Boltzmann and then I’ll shut up! From the wikipedia article:

    Boltzmann had a tremendous admiration for Darwin and he wished to extend Darwinism from biological to cultural evolution. In fact he considered biological and cultural evolution as one and the same things. … In short, cultural evolution was a physical process taking place in the brain. Boltzmann included ethics in the ideas which developed in this fashion

    Check him out. He is a relatively untold hero of the science story.

  45. #45 G.D.
    November 10, 2008

    Please, everyone, also take a look at this one from another science blog “Good Math, Bad Math” – an excellent piece (from an excellent blog); on information theory – which is, to put it mildly, pretty relevant to the topic:
    http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/08/why_is_randomness_informative.php#more

  46. #46 Hans
    November 10, 2008

    Love this stuff. Reminds me of how woo-woo types love to latch on to the uncertainty principle, and bloviate endlessly and irrelevantly. But when you go back to the science, and look at the equations, you realize that not only do scientists know what they don’t know, they can tell you exactly how big it is.

    In the words of xkcd’s author: “Science: it works, bitches”

  47. #47 Darth Wader
    November 10, 2008

    ?, Its Greek to me

  48. #48 charley
    November 10, 2008

    These creationists imply that wherever entropy decreases God is defying physics to perform a miracle. He must be so busy building each snowflake from random water molecules, and grabbing CO2 and H2O molecules to stack into oak trees and dandelions and the like. How does he find time for managing the rest of the universe and hating gays?

  49. #49 michel
    November 10, 2008

    just the number -302, followed by the number 420 x 10^12 made me laugh out loud.

  50. #50 Owlmirror
    November 10, 2008

    Link to abstract for “Entropy and Evolution” (for those who don’t have access to AJP)

    And here’s the author’s home page:

    http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/index.html

  51. #51 jackalopemonger
    November 10, 2008

    blf @13:

    http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1073734&postcount=232

    That’s the source, from what I can tell. Naturally, said fundie-nutter knew all about the sun, and clarified his position thusly:

    Sorry, my mistake guys, I didn’t explain why the Sun doesn’t count. Here is the info on that from ChristianAnswers.net:

    Is Energy the Key?
    To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun’s energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?

    Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

    A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun’s energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers – all beginning from a single seed.

    If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

    What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.

    You were born perfect, now I don’t mean perfect like muscly body and everything is the “normal” conditions. I mean perfect as in you haven’t sinned. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the f word.

    In response to Crimson King: Of course we use science to prove you wrong, but of course you just deny it. Jesus is the son of God so therefore can perform miracles. Raising from the dead is nothing short of a miracle. Creationists have their essential beliefs about God, and take those views and put them to use when they find scientific evidence. Those views more than always agree with the evidence.

    Which I guess can be summarized as: if the Sun can’t perform miracles and bring plants back to life, then evolution can’t occur.

  52. #52 Steve_C
    November 10, 2008

    But who determined the LAW?!?!? There has to be celestial law bringer!

  53. #53 Michael X
    November 10, 2008

    I realized I was a child of the internet, when I read how much entropy we (highly overestimated!) humans cause per second as: -302 units of Just Kidding.

    Is it just me? It’s just me isn’t it?

  54. #54 Glen Davidson
    November 10, 2008

    I wrote “Granville Stewart” in #8, when it should have been “Granville Sewell.” It’s hard to keep these bozos straight–especially when they’re as pathetic as Granville is.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  55. #55 QDA
    November 10, 2008

    To anyone that can provide some insight:

    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    Yes, I’m a ‘troll’ as most of you would refer to me, but no, it’s not a loaded question. A valid, respectful, insult-free response would be appreciated and I’ll be on my merry little way. Thanks.

  56. #56 uncle noel
    November 10, 2008

    The 2nd Law argument is obviously bunk. I mean good lord: even condensation entails entropy reduction! But – just being the devil’s advocate here – wouldn’t the creationist respond that the biggest reduction in entropy occurs in going from inanimate matter to living thing? Doesn’t the argument beg the question when we can’t say exactly how that happened or how long it took? There seems to be a big difference in entropy between a prokaryote and a crystal. This may be a different issue than the one of whether evolution can occur, but it is related.
    The 2nd Law argument is also used to “refute” the Big Bang theory. Again, it is the initial state that is tricky. “Let there be light” is not too different a theory. I mean, except for God and stuff.

  57. #57 Steve_C
    November 10, 2008

    did you see me lay down the law?!!!

    I am the law giver.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghANtP1JPPg

  58. #58 templewhore
    November 10, 2008

    Science and math make me very happy.

  59. #59 Sili
    November 10, 2008

    QDA,

    No. Or no, if that’s your poison.

  60. #60 Steve_C
    November 10, 2008

    Nope QDA. Plenty of people accept the fact of evolution without ever giving up their superstitions. They just usually fold evolution into whatever “sacred” beliefs they have. The biblical story of “creation” is just so silly, how could they not?

  61. #61 Glen Davidson
    November 10, 2008

    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    Certainly not, at least not without the rest of science providing the same “agnostic” message as evolution does.

    Evolutionary science simply fails to support the claim that God exists, along with the other divisions of science.

    If, say, meteorology indicated a rational mind behind weather, the silence of evolution would do nothing to gainsay the evidence provided by meteorology. Likewise with cosmology.

    The only reason evolutionary theory is supposed to be especially contrary to the idea of God is that religious folk have held onto life as “proof” of God in a more central manner, and for longer, than they claimed, for instance, that the weather was due to God/the gods. Then came Darwin, and he was blamed for “God’s death,” when theist Newton is at least as responsible–not least because evolution brings biology into the same realm of causation as the “celestial spheres” are, hence it is basically the extension of classical physics (with a smatter of QM) into biology.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

  62. #62 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 10, 2008

    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    No it says nothing about it. Now reaching that conclusion after understanding and accepting the validity of the Theory of Evolution and weighing it with a multitude of other bits of data, that’s another thing.

    your millage may vary.

  63. #63 oldtree
    November 10, 2008

    I would expect a correlation with time. The lack of a timepiece may be causing the person some distress. Entropy may look like decay to someone out of time.

  64. #64 The Chemist
    November 10, 2008

    Ha! I was just working an entropy problem before I came here, and I was earnestly thinking about evolution in the same context.

    Quite stealing my thoughts PZ! My tinfoil hat shall defeat you!

  65. #65 Greg R.
    November 10, 2008

    PeteUK

    In the space of a few words, he more or less accepts the validity of physics, chemistry, biology and even geology as sciences, and of course he is upholding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the basis for his argument.
    So he seems to be supporting the scientific method and (most of) its cumulative achievements. But evolution – oh no!
    A bit selective, wouldn’t you say?

    Ah, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a LAW, created by God, while the theory of evolution is merely a theory, created by man.

    You were born perfect, now I don’t mean perfect like muscly body and everything is the “normal” conditions. I mean perfect as in perfectly atheistic. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the g word.

    Fixed.

  66. #66 Epikt
    November 10, 2008

    Tom:

    Boltzmann Constant. Named after Ludwig Boltzmann I believe. My favourite scientist, way ahead of his time. A tragic story too, if you care to look it up

    In (IIRC) Goodstein’s graduate text on stat mech, there’s a nice riff to the effect that the study of this stuff induces depression. It describes Boltzmann’s work on the subject and his subsequent suicide. Ditto for Paul Ehrenfest. Then, to encourage the student, there’s something like “Now it’s our turn to study statistical mechanics.”

  67. #67 Lee Picton
    November 10, 2008

    Sigh. I don’t get the math (never having gotten past high school third year algebra), but then, I have the security of relying on experts who know what they are talking about. Having some expertise in other fields prompts me to mention that minuscule is spelled minuscule. You’re welcome.

  68. #68 Christian A.
    November 10, 2008

    I am i bit annoyed I did not look into Pharyngula earlier today. That awesomestnerd bit is really the bestest quote evar!!!!!1!one It’s a bit like a bullet stuck in my skull. I *feel* that quote from time to time moving in my head, especially when someone mentions evolution and entropy. It’s a highlight of ignorance, kind like ignoring a bat when hit by it.

  69. #69 tsg
    November 10, 2008

    To anyone that can provide some insight:

    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    No, but it is one less thing for which god is needed as an explanation.

  70. #70 Travis
    November 10, 2008

    Suddenly I feel a song coming on

    http://www.imeem.com/joshgreenslade/music/-EvoJAbV/flanders_and_swann_first_and_second_law/

    Yeah – that’s entropy, man!

  71. Hi Rev a #3,

    Thanks for the page. Looks like I got back from vacation just in time. I am at work right now so my comment will be brief. Consider this strawman statement:

    they [creationists] seem to have an absolutist notion that the second law prohibits all decreases in entropy;

    Of course creationists understand that entropy can decrease. We also understand that the earth is not a closed system. Some of us are even smart enough to wear sunscreen to reduce our risk of skin cancer.

  72. #72 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Exactly! Here we can employ complexity theory and information theory in a framework of systems-thinking to once and for all present a fatal argument against that creotard nonsense. Life on earth is a self-organizing system without teleology. The entropy can decrease within the (interest-relative) boundaries of the system “earth”, more specifically “life on earth”, there can be a local increase in order/systematic complexity through self-organization, which we know occurs naturally (for more see Self-Organisation at Scholarpedia). There is always at least one system of which the system with local increase in order and complexity is a real subsystem, in which the entropy increases over time. And any system, even the most complex systems will “gravitate” in their behaviour towards certain attractors – these attractors can be very complex, and thus it is entirely explicable that such complex systems as life on earth or even human mental activity should exist – this does not conflict with thermodynamics because the systems gravitate to specific attractors in their energy-state and there is always at least one system that includes the initial one where the entropy increases.

    I mean, I can see how the creotard idiot might impress someone who is generally hostile to evolution and might have heard about “thermodynamics” and “entropy” fleetingly. But surely it is impossible to be aware of the above facts about entropy and complex systems and still believe that evolution is thermodynamically impossible? Which leaves it to people like PZ, Daniel Styer and us to educate the people we meet – “immunize” them against creationist nonsense. I only wish more people took an interest in the world as understood by science…

  73. #73 Chris Crawford
    November 10, 2008

    When I was an undergraduate at the University of California at Davis, around 1970, a creationist by the name of Duane T. Gish gave a lecture in which he made the same claim about 2nd Thermo. He was corrected on it by one of the physics professors in the audience. These people don’t seem to learn, do they?

  74. #74 Nick Gotts
    November 10, 2008

    QDA@55,
    A “troll” is someone who comments on a blog simply to annoy or waste time, not to make a contribution to the discussion or ask a sincere question, so on the evidence so far you’re not one – and have been answered politely. Incidentally, the original derivation of the term is apparently from a method of rod-and-line fishing, not from the mythical ugly creature that lurks under bridges.

  75. #75 bill ringo
    November 10, 2008

    When biophysicists are around biologists we talk physics, around physicists we talk biology. Amongst ourselves we talk about our grandchildren.
    Nice paper, nice commentary by our host.

  76. #76 Sven DiMilo
    November 10, 2008

    En-tro-py
    And I-vo-ry
    Live together in perfect har-mo-ny
    Side by side on my piano keyboard
    Tell me:
    Why can’t we?

  77. #77 frog
    November 10, 2008

    And of course, there is still no good measure for entropy of far-from-equilibrium systems!

    That’s the nailer that everyone pretends isn’t there — most measures of entropy, all the way to grand canonical, assume close-to-equilibrium conditions. On top of that, almost every real calculation of entry drops half the dimensions of that calculation — the distribution of velocities.

    So, not only is there a sufficient energy gradient to support the “negentropy” of life — but in fact that negentropy might not exist at all, but is purely an artifact of improper entropy calculations!

  78. #78 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Hear hear PZ and Daniel Styer…!

    We can employ complexity theory and information theory in a framework of systems-thinking to once and for all present a fatal argument against that creotard nonsense. Life on earth is a self-organizing system without teleology. The entropy can decrease within the (interest-relative) boundaries of the system “earth”, more specifically “life on earth”, there can be a local increase in order/systematic complexity through self-organization, which we know occurs naturally (for more see Self-Organisation at Scholarpedia). There is always at least one system of which the system with local increase in order and complexity is a real subsystem, in which the entropy increases over time. And any system, even the most complex systems will “gravitate” in their behaviour towards certain attractors – these attractors can be very complex, and thus it is entirely explicable that such complex systems as life on earth or even human mental activity should exist – this does not conflict with thermodynamics because the systems gravitate to specific attractors in their energy-state and there is always at least one system that includes the initial one where the entropy increases.

    And since these systems are so complex as to be unpredictable without running a complete facsimile (like cellular automata, see Complex Systems at Scholarpedia and Cellular Automata on Wikipedia), we know with certainty that even deism or “god-guided evolution” is wrong because the only way god could have planned for any of what happens in life on earth today is if he already ran exactly this universe before he did ours… what a pathetic god that would be.

    I mean, I can see how the creotard might impress someone who is generally hostile to evolution and might have heard about “thermodynamics” and “entropy” fleetingly. But surely it is impossible to be aware of the above facts about entropy and complex systems and still believe that evolution is thermodynamically impossible? Which leaves it to people like PZ, Daniel Styer and us to educate the people we meet – “immunize” them against creationist nonsense. I only wish more people took an interest in the world as understood by science…

    Not only does science not show that evolution is incompatible with theormodynamics, all of science – especially systems theory, biology, complexity theory, information theory – show that Theism and even Deism are incompatible with the universe as we understand it scientifically and rationally.

  79. #79 Adrian
    November 10, 2008

    “Thou are a geek tho”

  80. #80 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    …and by the way… which measure of entropy or complexity are these creationists talking about? Oh that’s right… they haven’t got a clue because they didn’t think it through… they’re just spouting pseudo-scientific bullshit.

    When we employ the concept of Kolmogorov-complexity, we can clearly see that even very complex systems like neural networks, individual neurons or even an individual in thermodynmaic exchange with its environment over the course of its history will “gravitate” towards energetically relatively more stable points, ie it will move – energetically – on a gradient towards some attractors of lower-energy states for the system. We can even describe the learning of a neural network (ie learning as it occurs in creatures with brains, like us), and the learning of an individual neuron in a network in terms of entropy – this model is called “Boltzmann Learning”. – And the heat-dissipation of even such complex processes of learning within a biological brain in context with its environment – even things as complex and “improbable” as this always dissipate enough heat not to make it impossible for the universe as a whole to move towards increased entropy… not even the entropy in the solar-system as a whole is increased much by it… as the paper PZ introduces explains. The kolmogorov-complexity of the complex, biofunctional systems is lower than that of total chaos because it observes patterns in which it transduces entropy/information… we have biofunctionality – the bifurcation of the complex thermodynamic system of life on earth… this is all perfectly within the grasp of science.

    I find it so utterly abominable when creationists use pseudo-scientific thinking to make an impression on those who perhaps could be educated about the actual state of affairs, and how little these idiots know of real science.

  81. #81 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Damn… sorry bout that double-post. I accidentally pressed post shortly before I pressed “Preview”, then made the corrections and then re-submitted it since I didn’t think it got through the first time… my browser was very slow and the submission of the preview timed out at my first attempt…

    I apologize

  82. #82 Vadjong
    November 10, 2008

    The thermodynamics argument against evolution is refuted in every breath it is uttered with.
    Simple.

  83. #83 Eric Atkinson@msn.com
    November 10, 2008

    I was exposed to thermodynamics in school and learned quite a bit more in the Navy. Boy It made my head hurt.
    One snarky way of summarizing the three laws is as follows:

    First Law. Heat can be converted to work.

    Second Law. But completely only at Zero Deg. K.

    Third Law. You can’t get to Zero Deg. K.

    Great post Dr Myers. Thanks. I love the way you put that old creationist saw to rest, if there isn’t math its just opinion.

  84. #84 Alex
    November 10, 2008

    “they haven’t got a clue because they didn’t think it through…”

    For sure. That’s what they love to do. They cherry-pick parts of a complex scientific issue and poorly apply it as support for their delusions. It’s complete dishonesty. They don’t actually to the research. They’re satisfied with a piss-poor supposition that they can tell their echo-chamber followers “disproves” evolution (or “proves” their deity), and maybe even let the real scientists chase a red-herring.

    They have the scientific community at a disadvantage in that they can be sloppy and imprecise – and still manage to speak from authority. Of course, science has them at a disadvantage because science deals with reality, which always seems to decisively dismantle their poorly constructed notions.

  85. #85 Kobra
    November 10, 2008

    PWNED!

  86. #86 Alex
    November 10, 2008

    “Boy It made my head hurt.”

    While studying it in college, the course earned the moniker “Thermogoddamnics”.

  87. #87 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Alex,

    They have the scientific community at a disadvantage in that they can be sloppy and imprecise – and still manage to speak from authority. Of course, science has them at a disadvantage because science deals with reality, which always seems to decisively dismantle their poorly constructed notions.

    Absolutely! That’s a good formulation.

  88. #88 Dancaban
    November 10, 2008

    If things are getting disordered as cretinists argue then surely they must do all they can to preserve what order we have left in the genome? Therefore they must weed out the undesirable elements and stop them reproducing as they are only contributing to this “disorder”. Even better give them no chance at all to contribute to this disorder by rounding them up and putting them into special “safe” places. And if that doesn’t work, well, “special” action might be called for. Anybody for the New (dis)Order?

  89. #89 Pablo
    November 10, 2008

    Sarcastro is right — the simplest rebuttal is to point out that the Second Law applies to a closed system. I don’t know why creationists don’t get that;

    Maybe because it’s not true.

    Here is the Kelvin statement of the 2nd Law:

    “It is not possible to create a system in which the sole result is the addition of heat and its complete conversion to work”

    Notice that there is nothing in this statement about open or closed systems.

    Given this statement, I can readily show that, for a closed system, dS > 0 for a spontaneous process. However, the SLoT also applies to everything, everywhere. It’s just that the implications of the SLoT in an open-system are very different from those in a closed system. Mathematically, the best statement of the SLoT is the Clausius inequality, TdS > dq (I can derive this using the Kelvin statement).

    So in the end, while it is definately true that creationists haven’t got a clue about the SLoT, it is also important that we counter them with an accurate version.

    It is true that the requirement that entropy must increase only applies to a closed system, and you can correctly point that out. But don’t go about claiming the 2nd law “doesn’t apply.” It most certainly does.

  90. #90 Robster, FCD
    November 10, 2008

    So, if entropy affects all real processes, is god less powerful now than any point in the past? If so, then god will end up so much less powerful in the future, we can ignore it safely. If god isn’t affected by entropy, by the creationist’s logic, god isn’t real…

  91. #91 pboyfloyd
    November 10, 2008

    Does he not try to be even more confusing(or authoritative) by claiming it is ‘Newton’s’ law? A lot of ‘em do.

    I like it when they are trying to imagine where energy might come from. Some powerful force in the sky that makes the grass grow and the wind blow.

    “Well, that sure ‘sounds’ like(wait a second, the Sun is shining on my monitor), what was I saying, oh yea, sure ‘sounds’ like GOD to ME!”

  92. #92 Nick Gotts
    November 10, 2008

    That’s the nailer that everyone pretends isn’t there — most measures of entropy, all the way to grand canonical, assume close-to-equilibrium conditions. – frog@77

    There’s an article in November’s Sci. Am. by J. Miguel Rubi, about extending applications of the Second Law to far-from-equilibrium systems. If any thermodynamicists have read it, I’d be interested in an opinion.

  93. #93 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    The thing is, the boundaries of any system (especially more more complex systems) are always interest-relative – there is no clear boundary, the boundary is defined by the property or properties according to which the observer distinguishes the system. Except – that is – for the universe as a whole. (Or perhaps multiverse – leave that one to the cosmologists) The universe/multiverse is necessarily all-encompassing – by the very definition of the term. And as such it is the only real system with non-interest-relative boundaries, and since it is complete, ie contains all other systems (where there are as many arbitrary subsystems as there are elements in the power-set of the set of all the constituents of the universe), it is only system which does not have information/energy-exchange with another… as long as the total entropy of everything together doesn’t tend to decrease, thermodynamics is not violated.

    And in any complex system you can arbitrarily define a subsystem whose entropy decreases, simply by picking out the spacetime-volume where locally the order increases while globally the entropy increases. So it is no surprise that we should find such pockets of low entropy – in fact, as we know, it’s not surprising that we should exists in such a pocket of low entropy… only there can we exist.

  94. #94 Paul Burnett
    November 10, 2008

    “One of the more persistent perpetrators of this kind of sloppy thinking is Henry Morris…” – PZ

    Make that a was, not an is – Henry Morris died in 2006, and is getting a well-deserved roasting along with Jerry Falwell and other Liars For Jesus?.

  95. #95 Alverant
    November 10, 2008

    The entropy argument is useful in one sense, anyone who uses it you know has limited knowledge of science and if they’re above college age you know they don’t WANT to understand either. It’s a flag indicating there’s nothing you can do to them to change their minds. The best you can do is humiliate them into silence by revealing their ignorance. As I told one of these jokers, “If you bothered to go to physics class in school and pay attention, you’d remember the ‘closed system’ part of the second law of thermodynamics.” That shut him up rather quickly.

  96. #96 Pablo
    November 10, 2008

    boundary is defined by the property or properties according to which the observer distinguishes the system. Except – that is – for the universe as a whole.

    Interesting comments, MPhil.

    Which leads to my next observation: Assuming that we consider the universe to be a closed system, we can then say that an implication of the 2nd law is that the entropy of the “universe” must increase, right? Interestingly, that is only true because of the expanding universe. If the universe were collapsing (dV < 0), then I can show that for any process, the total entropy of the universe would have to decrease (although there could be differences in local systems).

  97. #97 amphiox
    November 10, 2008

    #32:
    I think the most appropriate Egyptian deity is actually Aten rather than Ra.

    Ra was a sun-god, but he was an anthropomorphic one. That is, although he was in charge of the sun, he was actually humanoid in form.

    Aten, however, was the actual disc of the sun.

  98. #98 Paul Burnett
    November 10, 2008

    One snarky way of summarizing the three laws (of thermodynamics) is as follows: First Law. Heat can be converted to work….” – Eric, #83

    1. You can’t win.
    2. You can’t break even.
    3. You can’t get out of the game.

  99. #99 Pablo
    November 10, 2008

    If you bothered to go to physics class in school and pay attention, you’d remember the ‘closed system’ part of the second law of thermodynamics.”

    Personally, I challenge them to show me how evolution violates the Clausius inequality.

  100. #100 SteveM
    November 10, 2008

    One snarky way of summarizing the three laws is as follows:

    First Law. Heat can be converted to work.

    Second Law. But completely only at Zero Deg. K.

    Third Law. You can’t get to Zero Deg. K.

    Hardly snarky at all. The truly snarky summary is:
    1)you can’t win
    2)you can’t break even
    3)you can’t get out of the game

  101. #101 Paper Hand
    November 10, 2008

    I’m surprised no one’s commented on this from the quote in #28

    You were born perfect, now I don’t mean perfect like muscly body and everything is the “normal” conditions. I mean perfect as in you haven’t sinned. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the f word.

    This guy doesn’t even know his own religion’s theology! What ever happened to Original Sin, hunh?

  102. #102 Sili
    November 10, 2008

    I thought the witty formulation was:

    1. You can’t win.

    2. You can’t break even.

    3. You can’t get out of the game.

  103. #103 Sven DiMilo
    November 10, 2008

    I mean perfect as in you haven’t sinned. I doubt that anybody has come out of their mother and shouted the f word.

    On account of uttering the Anglo-Saxon word for “sexual intercourse” is a known sin. It’s right there in The Holy Bible, seriously.

  104. #104 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Pablo,

    I seem to vaguely remember something like that. And surely, if we “travelled” through spacetime in the opposite direction for the entire history of the universe, we would observe such things as exhaust fumes going back into the engine etc… and temporally locally there would be a drastic decrease in entropy – but we’d end up with the big bang, the initial conditions… and as we know, as we approach the big-bang, travelling backwards in time in a collapsing universe – the immense heat means a very high kolmogorov-complexity, no real order, high entropy, no complex subsystems. Neither at the beginning nor at the end of universe from our view of the direction-of-time have complex subsystems… only in the middle do we have these. Neither heat-death nor condensation at the big-bang allow for complexity. As such, the overall tendency is there because of inflation – but in a reversed space-time, a collapsing spacetime, we would also “end up” without order.

  105. #105 SteveM
    November 10, 2008

    Pablo and MPhil,

    I thought Hawking showed that even if the universe were to stop expanding and recollapse, entropy would continue to increase and time would not reverse.

  106. #106 Alex
    November 10, 2008

    sin, blasphemy, prayer, holy, heaven, hell, angels, demons – all meaningless words designed to artificially prop up a non-existent, fabrication of reality.

  107. #107 OilBoy
    November 10, 2008

    Im confused about which entropy we are talking about. The 2nd law applys to thermodynamic entropy, but the Boltzman stuff is statistical entropy. The 2nd law doesnt say ‘disorder increases’ at all, rather its a mathematical statement of the usable heat energy that remains after a process.

  108. #108 The skepTick
    November 10, 2008

    302 J/K every second? That’s the same units as thermal conductance (W/K). If so, then wouldn’t it be correct to say that evolution has about a thermal conductance somewhere between Portland Cement (0.29 W/mK) and dry sand (0.35 W/mK)?

  109. #109 Pablo
    November 10, 2008

    I thought the witty formulation was:

    1. You can’t win.

    2. You can’t break even.

    3. You can’t get out of the game.

    I’ve heard this line before, but I will admit I don’t really understand the third one. There are different ways of stating the third law, often involving the Nernst heat theorem and whatnot, but a common concise statement is, “The entropy of a perfect crystal is zero at zero kelvin.”

    How does this imply “You can’t get out of the game”?

  110. #110 Katkinkate
    November 10, 2008

    Posted by: rob @ 41 “… with this in mind, one might ask oneself if there is so much entropy flux available why don’t we see advanced species like sharks with frickin’laser beams? how come evolution moves so slowly.”

    We may eventually, if people or sharks don’t go extinct first. It all takes time and there is several billion years yet to go before our sun goes nova.

  111. #111 Bert Chadick
    November 10, 2008

    Oh Noes! Now my Honda won’t start! It seems that it only wants to sit and decay in order to comply with the second law of thermodynamics.

  112. #112 tcb
    November 10, 2008

    Of course, the sad part of all this is that such a journal article is even necessary.

    My mother took her Mech.E. degree in the 1940s. When I was young I used to look at the pretty color plates in her old textbooks and try to figure out what they were about. Presumably as a result, the qualitative laws of thermodynamics seem like the tritest common sense to me. I finally understood(ish) classical phase space after reading a Sci. Am. article some time in the 70s or 80s.

    Now, I can’t be all that exceptional. We need to get some better physics (yes, physics – sorry) into K-12 classrooms in the hope that others will absorb the principles as “trite common sense.”

    The calculations are another matter, but not everyone needs to actually perform them.

    Slightly OT – I was about to despair of seeing any more science posts on here; sorry for doubting you, PZ!

  113. #113 PurpleTurtle
    November 10, 2008

    Not a scientist, as you will shortly be able to tell…
    I thought that a singularity was the highest form of order, and that increasing complexity was therefore an increase in disorder, no matter how well it appeared organized? Is this totally wrong, or as a scientific moron, am I just simplifying things to the point of unhelpful?

    Also, is there a reading list knocking around along the lines of science for total beginners who don’t want to read books aimed at 5 year olds?

    Much thanx.

  114. #114 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Pablo,

    in addition to my last comment (I forgot to mention this)…

    Complex systems which can be described as performing certain functions – ie automata-theoretic models (non-deterministic finite automata) of systems (we can view an organism as some form of automaton, and even life on earth as a general phenomenon) can be described with lower kolmogorov-complexity than complete chaos – we can describe the algorithmically, give a function which the system observes in a certain respect… for a completely chaotic system in contrast to a more ordered system like a brain or life on earth versus a chaotic distribution of particles over time in a certain space, the kolmogorov-complexity will always be higher. Even in an ideally minimal (non-redundant or pleonastic) language the description of a system like the universe entering heat death or the approaching the big-bang (backwards in time) will always require a more extensive description – since a complex functional system (like an eye, a pocket calculator, a brain or a PC) is ordered in virtue of being describable as performing a certain function (which can also be expressed in purely thermodynamic/information-theoretic terms)… I am currently doing research on this for the application in my master’s thesis in neurophilosophy/philosophy of mind (I’m a student of formal logic, formal meta-science and philosophy, specializing on the philosophy of mind, Naturalism vs Dualism/”Supernaturalism”, mind-brain relation)… this last bit of information just to explain the context of my posts…

  115. #115 SteveM
    November 10, 2008

    “The entropy of a perfect crystal is zero at zero kelvin.”

    How does this imply “You can’t get out of the game”?

    The law actually refers to an asymptotic process, effectively saying that zero K cannot be achieved by a finite number of processes. I assume that achieving zero K is effectively “getting out of the game”.

  116. #116 Alex
    November 10, 2008

    “…why don’t we see advanced species like sharks with frickin’laser beams?”

    If you consider human acts as a function of Nature, then sharks with laser beams is no problem. It’s something that can be easily done. Silliness aside, applied intelligence can affect entropy. Taking that one step further is when evolution creates a self-sustaining, self-replicating, self-improving AI – albeit by human acts. That’s what’s next.

  117. #117 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Pablo,

    in addition to my last comment (I forgot to mention this)…

    Complex systems which can be described as performing certain functions – ie automata-theoretic models (non-deterministic finite automata) of systems (we can view an organism as some form of automaton, and even life on earth as a general phenomenon) can be described with lower kolmogorov-complexity than complete chaos – we can describe the algorithmically, give a function which the system observes in a certain respect… for a completely chaotic system in contrast to a more ordered system like a brain or life on earth versus a chaotic distribution of particles over time in a certain space, the kolmogorov-complexity will always be higher. Even in an ideally minimal (non-redundant or pleonastic) language the description of a system like the universe entering heat death or the approaching the big-bang (backwards in time) will always require a more extensive description – since a complex functional system (like an eye, a pocket calculator, a brain or a PC) is ordered in virtue of being describable as performing a certain function (which can also be expressed in purely thermodynamic/information-theoretic terms)… I am currently doing research on this for the application in my master’s thesis in neurophilosophy/philosophy of mind (I’m a student of formal logic, formal meta-science and philosophy, specializing on the philosophy of mind, Naturalism vs Dualism/”Supernaturalism”, mind-brain relation)… this last bit of information just to explain the context of my posts…

  118. #118 Desert Son
    November 10, 2008

    amphiox at #97:

    Thanks for that follow-up. I was unfamiliar with Aten, so defaulted to the only Ancient Egyptian sun deity I knew. Good to learn more, and your suggestion makes much more sense!

    No kings,

    Robert

  119. #119 Alex
    November 10, 2008

    “…and that increasing complexity was therefore an increase in disorder, no matter how well it appeared organized?”

    Order & disorder are loaded terms. They place a value-judgment. Using neutral terminology helps with the precision. However, using complexity to describe systems can be trick. Regarding geometric distributions of objects, it can be said there are 2 kinds of complexity (or order), grouping order, and symmetry order. As an example, the distribution of checker-pieces at the beginning of the game is symmetry order – reds on ones side, blacks on the other. An even distribution of red and black pieces over the board is symmetry order. It would seem that it could be described that the Universe is going from grouping order (lumpy) to symmetry order (smooth).

  120. #120 George
    November 10, 2008

    First, as others have noted it applies to a closed system. It also applies to entropy – the availability of the systems energy to do work. I do not recall the term “order” arising

  121. #121 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Damn – another double post. Again Pharyngula told me first that my comment would not be posted because I had already posted many in such short time – so I should try again later. I did – and get another double-post. I’m really sorry, people – I really don’t mean to spam… it seems there’s something wrong with my connections. My dlan has been acting up lately. Again, – I’m really sorry, folks!

    On the subject of thermodynamic vs statistic entropy/disorder… since all information must be “embodied” somewhere – and every structure/system that isn’t totally random/chaotic under any formal description of entropy/order/complexity also “embodies” some information (I think information has become an accepted quantity in the natural science, thanks to applied mathematics in information-theory, systems theory etc..) – we can say that anything that we can reasonably describe (pick out) as a distinct “process”, changes the configuration of the system in a discernible way, the heat/energy throughput is a valid description of the system over time – there is also an information-theoretic description of the system. When the global entropy of a system increases, it means that it requires – overall – more extensive information to describe than a sub-region of that system where energy/heat decreases locally, where there is order, information, structure… and my thesis is that spatiotemporal structure is the central defining aspect of systems – this unites the thermodynamic, complexity-theory, information-theoretic and model-theoretic views of systems.

  122. #122 Alex
    November 10, 2008

    “…the distribution of checker-pieces at the beginning of the game is symmetry order…”

    correction:

    the distribution of checker-pieces at the beginning of the game is grouping order

  123. #123 Watchman
    November 10, 2008

    Remember this tendency from order to disorder applies to all real processes. Real processes include, of course, biological and geological processes…

    <zardoz>
    “Pay no attention to the layers of sedimentary rock behind the curtain!”
    </zardoz>

  124. #124 Randy
    November 10, 2008

    Like most engineers, I had to study thermodynamics including an entire 400 class on the subject so I really find it bemusing when religious fundamentalists attempt to lecture me on the subject.

  125. #125 Alex
    November 10, 2008

    “…so I really find it bemusing when religious fundamentalists attempt to lecture me on the subject.”

    There you go…you snobby know-it-all sciency types thinking you can explain everything! Have you ever given birth to a baby?! Do you know where we go when we die?! Do you know how the Universe was created?! Do you?! Do YOU!!?

    [/hysterical god -botting]

  126. #126 frog
    November 10, 2008

    MPhil:

    Symmetry-breaking? I’ve had a thought that what distinguishes non-equilibrium systems is the asymmetry that would shift entropy measurements to counting pathways rather than just component distribution — the minimal case being where all pathways are possible, ie, equilibrium conditions with low asymmetry in all dimensions.

    I sure wish someone would figure this out so I would stop wasting my spare capacity — this problem keeps on sneaking into the back of my head. I guess it’s the only real problem. How to count, that is.

  127. #127 Somnolent Aphid
    November 10, 2008

    yeah, closed system, point at the sun, utter silliness. Thank goodness they don’t try using something REALLY mysterious like Gibbs Free Energy to prove the folly of evolution. Honestly, Entropy, that’s so 1850’s.

  128. #128 Nick Gotts
    November 10, 2008

    Taking that one step further is when evolution creates a self-sustaining, self-replicating, self-improving AI – Alex

    It’s arguable we are such systems. Human cognition is heavily dependent on invented symbol-manipulating processes, both external and internalised – so in that sense, we are partially artificial.

  129. #129 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    First time poster here

    I didn’t see this mentioned, but the major flaw in the reasoning is that it is assumed that the second “law” must be upheld. Science is all about observation, so *if* (big if) the argument that evolution goes against the second law, then – since evolution has actually been observed to happen – all that properly follows is that the second law is wrong and must be modified. Observation overrules calculation any day

    Now, I’m not saying that the second law is wrong, or that evolution implies that it is, I’m just pointing out a flaw in the reasoning.

  130. #130 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    frog,

    Symmetry-braking? Well, quite – bifurcaton of complex systems. In bifurcated complex systems, information is present as distributed, meaningfully-discernible structure. Lookning at life on earth as a whole, and human knowledge and technology (including language and media) specifically, we find that information is also “mirrored”, transduced and processed in specific ways – through similarity relations. Like between a printed picture of the horsehead-nebula, our mental representation of the printed picture of the horsehead-nebula, the data stored in my PC’s harddrive of the picture of the horsehead nebula and the nebula itself. Now, the system composed of all these things – the printout, my brain, the hard-disk shows – as a whole, a complex form of self-similarity, namely that specific parts of it are similar to other parts of it, – the spatiotemporal, and thus also informational structure of these subsystems are affine translations/transformations of each other.

    In physical reality, we have to assume there is some lowest level, some fundamental constituent (strings, particles, local excitations of fields, whatever) – in contrast to the hypothetical infinite divisibility in abstract mathematical representations and quantifications. As such, there will be a lowest level. But otherwise, a good analogy (if not taken too literally) would be a fractal… as we zoom in, we find certain parts similar both to other parts at the same level of “zoom” and similar to structures at other levels. In such immensely complex systems as life on earth, perhaps even life on earth plus the things external to earth of which we humans have created informational representations… there is perhaps little similiarity between different levels of “zoom”… but there are certainly still many similarity-relations between sub-systems. This again brings us back to Complexity of description – algorithmic/kolmogorov-complexity.

  131. #131 Robster, FCD
    November 10, 2008

    Anders, that is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

    If a person who is stating that evo defies 2nd thermo, then states that either evo or 2nd thermo is wrong is ignoring the possibility that they are in fact the one that is wrong.

    I like it.

  132. #132 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Anders,

    Observation overrules calculation any day

    Well, there is something to be said for this. But it’s also a bit naive – all observation is theory-laden. Observation is more than mere perception. In observing (not merely perceiving) something, we conceptualize it in a certain way that takes certain things for granted. For example, when we data we got from an experiment (observation), we take a lot for granted when we draw conclusions from that – namely everything that is presupposed by all of science, plus everything that is presupposed by the specific methods we employ.

    Thus, all observation is “tainted” by theoretical presuppositions (the scientific instruments of measurement of physicists for example are constructed and interpreted according to a specific theoretical understanding of that which is studied and observed, – which has to be true if the readings of these instruments are to be meaningful).

    So, there is no strictly clear line of demarcation between “observation” and “theory”.

  133. #133 frog
    November 10, 2008

    Mphil:

    I like to keep it down to counting. What do we have to count? That’s a tricky problem – as K complexity shows, since you can’t count K, just give it an upper bound.

    I hate putting it into words — the problems are always due to words. If you can reduce all you’re saying down to counting — I’d find it a bit more digestible. All that nastiness of scales and self-similarity just make it harder to figure out what we’re supposed to be counting.

  134. #134 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    MPhil,

    I’m not sure what’s so naive about the notion of falsifiability. It is the core of the scientific method. If something is predicted by a theory, but it is observed not to be the case (repeatably), then the theory must be modified.

    In this case, if (font size 300 IF) the second law of thermodynamics did indeed predict that evolution could not happen, then – since we have observed it happening – we would have to modify the second law to take into account the new findings.

    Of course, I don’t think the creationists are really gunning for the second law, they hope their argument will be solely against evolution

    And as many other posters have pointed out, the second law predicts no such thing, so it’s bunk to begin with, but IF it did, the thing modified would have to be the second law, not evolution

  135. #135 frog
    November 10, 2008

    Anders: Science is all about observation, so *if* (big if) the argument that evolution goes against the second law, then – since evolution has actually been observed to happen – all that properly follows is that the second law is wrong and must be modified. Observation overrules calculation any day

    Mmmm. I’d have to suggest that we put the benefit of the doubt towards physics.

    First, evolution is not primarily observations — but it’s the body of theory that makes those observations make sense.

    Second, the general rule is we believe the physicists first, and then the biologists. Simpler systems and more rigorous theories. The thermodynamic observations can be much more rigorously controlled than evolutionary observations, and thermodynamic theory can be worked from first principles in a way that evolutionary theory has not been.

    So, if evolutionary theory actually contradicted physical theory — then we’d be better off betting that biologists had been misinterpreting their observations than that physicists had. The latter is always possible — but I wouldn’t bet my mortgage payments on it.

    Science isn’t just about observations — it’s about a system of interpreted observations that are consistent. Usually, when your observations don’t match the well-tested calculations, it’s your observations that are wrong. But it is much more interesting when you find that the calculations are actually wrong.

  136. #136 negentropyeater
    November 10, 2008

    Anders,

    correct, but these fruitbats are all about denying that Evolution is actually observed.
    You know, they’ll pull the old canard that only micro-evolution is observed, and then they’ll use their mistaken interpretation of the second law to confirm their affirmation that macro-evolution has never been observed, as it is physically impossible that it occurs.

  137. #137 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    frog,

    I think we have to distance ourselves from the focus on “counting”. Some aspects can be formally described, not by literally counting – ie by a one-dimensional metric, but only by more complex formal, perhaps (but not necessarily) quantitative representations. Applying mathematics in theories in empirical science is all about relations – not merely between numbers on a one-dimensional metric (of the real-numbers for example)… but potentially about describing formally more complex relations – consider the properties of the Lorentz-attractor as a representation of the development of a chaotic system. The discernible structure is not expressible in a one-dimensional metric (ie “counting”). Or consider spacetime topology inside a system over time. We can formally describe a system over time as the configuration between its fundamental elements over time – and we can represent each intrinsic property of an element as a vector or a value of a dimension – and the topological relation between the elements, the dynamic behaviour of the system (including shifting electromagnetic fields etc) will be describable so that we can formally, strictly constitute homeomorphisms or topological isomorphisms in abstract vector-spaces.

    These kinds of mathematics can be used in game-theory and decision-theory, as well as automata-theory and neural network theory. All completely scientific. But sometimes we need more complex and abstract methods of description than mere counting – constituting topological/structural and/or informational homeomorphisms in systems is one such instance.

    It’s still perfectly legitimate scientific, methodological thinking.

  138. #138 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    anders,

    I was not criticizing falsification – absolutely not. I was making the independent point that observation is always theory laden – and that consequently, when a prediction turns out not to be observed, we cannot say with certainty where the error was specifically in the specific theory that made the prediction. And the theory as well as our means of testing it (interpreting our raw-data – our observations) take certain things for granted – and the error, the reason why the prediction doesn’t match the observation can lie anywhere within the entire complex of assumptions of the theory and its presuppositions – as well as the pre-suppositions of the method we chose to test the theory.

    Popper had it right that falsification is our primary method. But such people like Imre Lakatos, W. Quine, and P. Dunhem, Sneed and Suppes have shown that science has other aspects as well – for example the under-determination of theories by empirical data (a specific set of empirical data is never only compatible with one single theory-network) and theory-ladenness of observation (as the saying goes “the sciences face trial as a whole”).

    If this interests you, I’d recommend looking up the “Duhem-Quine thesis” (Wikipedia-Article

  139. #139 EB
    November 10, 2008

    OK, but what justifies the 0.001 reduction in microstates each generation? Why not 0.1, or 0.000001? Instead of Styers’ approach, my problem with the creationist’s argument is that they never talk in terms of microstates, which is the only way to deal with entropy. Creationists equate “humans” with “order” (i.e. few microstates), and “human ancestors” with “disorder” (i.e. many microstates). Where in the world does this argument come from? In fact, who’s to say that evolution leads to fewer microstates… maybe if we do the astronomically difficult calculation of determining the microstates of a human vs. a dinosaur, there would be *more* microstates in the human?! i.e. we could have Sf > Si, rather than Sf < Si.

  140. #140 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    negentropyeater,

    True, they never stick to one argument. When it’s shown to fail, they move immediately on to the next, until they run out of arguments, at which time they start over again. If that energy could be harnessed, we would be well on the way to energy independence :)

    But I still enjoy pointing out to them that their arguments, even if you accept all their invalid premises, still don’t lead to the conclusion they hope

  141. #141 frog
    November 10, 2008

    Mphil:

    Isn’t topology just another way of counting as well? One hole, two holes, knot hole, ripped hole?

    I don’t think we’re capable of any kind of “mathematics” that doesn’t ultimately reduce to counting — in some dimensionality (i.e., we can count more than one box at a time). The proliferation of words may be perfectly methodological — but it’s also dangerous, if it leads us to think that we’re doing anything other than counting.

    That’s why entropy is so satisfying — it brings back all the nastiness back to how many pigs we can fit in the pen, and how to find the fattest one.

  142. #142 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    MPhil,

    Sure, we are all making assumptions all the time, to make life easier (and more full of jesus images in toast).

    But it is still the fact, that if you make a direct observation that turn out to be contrary to the predictions of a theory, something has to be changed. Assuming the test setup is correct, within the framework of accepted scientific theory, some part of some theory has to go. You don’t change the observation. It may be some theory involved in creating the testing equipment, or it may be the theory that made the contradicted prediction.

    But you don’t just throw out the observation, and that is what the argument sounded like to me (evolution can’t be right, no matter how often it is observed, since it violates the second law of thermodynamics!)

  143. #143 gaypaganunitarianagnostic
    November 10, 2008

    1. You can’t win
    2 You can’t break even
    3 Things will get worse before they get better
    4 They will not get better

  144. #144 Anton Mates
    November 10, 2008

    frog:

    Second, the general rule is we believe the physicists first, and then the biologists. Simpler systems and more rigorous theories. The thermodynamic observations can be much more rigorously controlled than evolutionary observations, and thermodynamic theory can be worked from first principles in a way that evolutionary theory has not been.

    Depends on the nature and quality of the observations. Biology and geology trumped physics in the debate over the age of the solar system, because the sun is not a sufficiently simple system, and it involves energy-production mechanisms that contemporary physicists had not yet taken into account.

  145. I think Raven’s argument at #10 is fairly representative and well said. But is there anyone here who can put their critical thinking cap on and explain what is wrong with his argument or all you all just a bunch of ditto-heads?

  146. #146 Anton Mates
    November 10, 2008

    I think Raven’s argument at #10 is fairly representative and well said. But is there anyone here who can put their critical thinking cap on and explain what is wrong with his argument or all you all just a bunch of ditto-heads?

    Who are you talking to?

  147. #147 'Tis Himself
    November 10, 2008

    Randy,

    If you have a point to then make it. Making ambiguous statements and/or asking us to make your arguments for you is a non-starter around here.

  148. #148 frog
    November 10, 2008

    Anton Mates: Depends on the nature and quality of the observations

    Well, yes, of course — it’s not about institutional priority, but scientific principle. So your solar age counter-example is good, but off-point. No one tried to use the incorrect physical datings of the solar system to, say, disprove thermodynamics (which was one of the sources of the calculations).

    The bets were “unknown energy source”, not accounted for, which turned out to be nuclear physics. The equivalent here is that we’re calculating the entropy of the system incorrectly; just as in the solar case we calculated the rate of burn and output incorrectly.

    But if we can every eliminate that, I’d bet against biology. Just as if we could have actually eliminated all “unknown energy source” from the solar case, I would have bet against geology!

    Fortunately, we still have a long way to work on entropy — and we found the “unknown energy source” — so I don’t have to bet against either physics or biology.

  149. #149 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Anders,

    Assuming the test setup is correct, within the framework of accepted scientific theory, some part of some theory has to go. You don’t change the observation. It may be some theory involved in creating the testing equipment, or it may be the theory that made the contradicted prediction.

    But you don’t just throw out the observation, and that is what the argument sounded like to me

    Indeed. That’s the way it is. But it’s also a fact that we cannot know where the problem lies – we don’t throw away the observation – but we must also question the assumptions underlying our interpretation of the raw data (and observation is always an interpretation of perception). For example – we have reason to take it as given that a certain instrument of measurement shows a certain value (for example that a digital thermometer shows +290.3 degrees Kelvin), but if we predict something about a system and measure it with highly complex instruments, and the prediction doesn’t match the observation – the error may also lie in the assumptions underlying our belief that the output of the instrument tells us something about a real property of a system… ie the theory that underlies the functioning of the instrument.

    No, we don’t throw away the observation – but we must be aware that we can never give a definitive answer to the question “where exactly the error lay” when a prediction doesn’t match the theory. We may be fundamentally in error in our scientific interpretation of the world – that’s the skeptic challenge. The construct of all the accepted scientific theories (accepted as “working-hypotheses”) cannot prove its own truth – that’s why there is no final verification of theories in science, as we all know. But we have task-independent measurements of the quality of an explanatory approach: Parsimony, broadness of explanation, Corroboration, increase of logical and structural coherence when introduced into a framework of background-assumptions, and being (part of) a progressive (not stagnant or regressive) research-program.

    Then we have some reasonable pragmatic rules of scientific methodology – for example methodological naturalism, which says in essence nothing more than “‘Magic’ is just not an explanation”. This leads us not only to all our scientific insights, but also to the conclusion that we have no reason to accept the hypothesis that any sort of deity exists. We cannot prove that we are right – but this way, we can show that such a rationalist worldview as we hold is the best we can do, and that creationist nonsense is entirely inadequate. It’s not coherent, not parsimonious, wildly arbitrary and has no explanatory value whatsoever, because it postulates “magic” as an explanation.

  150. #150 trollfeeder
    November 10, 2008

    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    No. One is a scientific theory. The other a religious concept. They have nothing to do with each other.

    FWIW, the Pope accepts evolution and AFAIK isn’t an atheist.

  151. #151 frog
    November 10, 2008

    MPhil: No, we don’t throw away the observation – but we must be aware that we can never give a definitive answer to the question “where exactly the error lay” when a prediction doesn’t match the theory.

    Actually, in practice we do — all the time. It’s only when you get 10, 100, a 1000 “wrong” observations (depending on field) that we start to suspect that the theory’s got a hole in it, instead of throwing away the data.

    Just imagine a graduate student goes to their boss and says, “See this little stem cell dish? Well, a little George Bush formed in it!” What’s the boss say — “That’s just fungus. Go repeat your experiment”. Next day “I’ve got Palin in a dish!” — “Go repeat it. That’s just fungus”. Next day “I’ve got Jeb in a dish!” — “Okay, wash out the entire apparatus and start from scratch”.

    Repeat for 5 years. If you still have incompetent little stooges growing in your dish, your boss (and committee) may consider letting you publish on this.

  152. #152 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    frog,

    But if we can every eliminate that, I’d bet against biology. Just as if we could have actually eliminated all “unknown energy source” from the solar case, I would have bet against geology!

    But the issue here was that a physical theory made a prediction about something in biology. Are you suggesting that if that prediction turns out to be wrong, it is still right, simply because it is physics?

    You also said

    and thermodynamic theory can be worked from first principles in a way that evolutionary theory has not been.

    I’d like to see you try to deduce from first principles that no energy is ever created or destroyed. I also can’t quite picture what a proof from first principles of entropy would look like.

    These things are all derived from observation.

  153. #153 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    frog in #151,

    That’s why I said “repeatable” observations. I think “repeatable” is stronger than “repeated”

  154. #154 Kel
    November 10, 2008

    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    No, it’s not a necessity at all. Otherwise most scientists would be in trouble there.

  155. #155 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    MPhil,

    I agree with you completely, we can’t know for certain where the problem lies without a lot more work.

    But my original point here was just that the creationist argument “if the theory says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong, even if it’s observed” is clearly bunk.

  156. #156 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    frog,

    I’m just saying that this, what we’re doing all the time – namely deciding upon a specific evaluation of our observations and their relations to our theories… is not something where we can 100% certain. We’re just going with what works best – but we have no 100% guarantee that we’re right – the skeptical challange: we cannot even prove logically (ie with mathematical certainty) that anything outside our own minds exists… so how could we be 100% certain that any conclusion, any scientific judgement we arrive will be true? We cannot – not even about where the error lay. We can make educated guesses, but we cannot exclude the logical (we deem it remote) possibility that some underlying assumptions in the general framework for our interpretation of our perceptions are wrong.

    That’s why we have relative measures of explanatory adequacy of theories that do not necessitate knowing with absolute certainty that the theory is true or false… namely parsimony, explanatory broadness, corroboration and elimination of anomalies between underlying background-assumptions.

    Our best current scientific theories are always the best bet because they are the most methodological and thus reliable informant for our view of the world. We cannot prove anything of it is true – (we can only prove tautologies), but we can show that science is the best we have – and that it simply works! It works wonderfully, in fact.

  157. #157 MPhil
    November 10, 2008

    Anders,

    But my original point here was just that the creationist argument “if the theory says it’s wrong, then it’s wrong, even if it’s observed” is clearly bunk.

    Absolutely! I was just remarking that even with all the effort we can put into questioning where the error lay, why there is a mismatch between observation and theory, there is a specific fundamental uncertainty which we cannot eliminate – namely that all observations have underlying assumptions and all ways to find out where the error lies work on the basis of certain assumptions as well… scientific thinking cannot prove that scientific thinking is anywhere absolutely true. But, as I said – we can show that compared to myths, pseudo-science, post-modernist ideology and or wishful-thinking, science and methodological rationality as exemplified in empirical sciences, structural and informational sciences, analytical philosophy etc does far better and is for all intents and purposes preferable.

    This is also something the creationists and religious don’t seem to understand.

  158. #158 Rickr0ll
    November 10, 2008

    where did you go Randy? Coward! you think that all of this is wrong, tell us. don’t just sit back and throw stones

  159. #159 David Marjanovi?, OM
    November 10, 2008

    hmmm…let’s say that the final state is ONE BILLION times as improbable!!! heh, heh, heh…(evil scientist laugh)

    One hundred billion. Please. Did you pay any attention in Evil Medical School?

    First Law. Heat can be converted to work.

    Second Law. But completely only at Zero Deg. K.

    Third Law. You can’t get to Zero Deg. K.

    Sure you can. Just not in a closed system. Harhar.

    BTW, it’s “Kelvin”, not “degree Kelvin”.

    4 They will not get better

    Since when is there a 4th Law of Thermodynamics? I only know about the 0th…

  160. #160 frog
    November 10, 2008

    AM: But the issue here was that a physical theory made a prediction about something in biology. Are you suggesting that if that prediction turns out to be wrong, it is still right, simply because it is physics?

    Nope — I’m just saying which way I’d bet until it was absolutely, iron-clad conclusive. Iff physics made a prediction that contradicticted a biological observation, I would bet that something was incorrectly interpreted in the biological observation. Just as the fools who say that the “observed” increase in biological order entails a a decrease in entropy — and we can see that it’s a misinterpretation of the biology and the physics.

    I’d like to see you try to deduce from first principles that no energy is ever created or destroyed. I also can’t quite picture what a proof from first principles of entropy would look like.
    These things are all derived from observation.

    Bzzzz — wrong!

    Which observations show you that no energy is created or destroyed? “All” observations? Which experiment could falsify conservation of energy, in practice? No conservation of energy implies no conservation of momentum, it means a completely different understanding of force — it wrecks everything about physics. Without conservation of mass-energy, you can’t interpret your experiments in the first place — it would be a reboot in physics.

    It would take a hell of a lot more than a few observations to do that!

    It just ain’t that simple — it’s not a unidirectional flow from observation to theory. We’re more than willing to eliminate marginal observation that messes up a really satisfying and powerful theory. It’s a balancing act between observation and theory, in practice.

    In particular, entropy is easily derived from counting the ways you can arrange things, defining your set of equivalent arrangements and then figuring out what the probability of the different sets of arrangements are. Iff the world is the kind of place that is consistent, energy meaningful, and counting appropriate, the increase in entropy is necessary.

    Pick up Feynmann’s book on statistical mechanics. He does not start with experimental results — he starts with a first principles derivation of entropy. Of course, observations led us to derive entropy — but the experimental results are not sufficiently constraining to define entropy — the logical mapping from randomly moving particles to homogeneous bulks was just (if not more) important, which we then went forward with to explain and find further experiments.

  161. #161 Anton Mates
    November 10, 2008

    frog:

    No one tried to use the incorrect physical datings of the solar system to, say, disprove thermodynamics (which was one of the sources of the calculations).

    No, but they were used to disprove what I would say was an equally fundamental component of physics at the time–the constancy of the elements. (Rutherford actually spun the discovery of radioactivity to Kelvin that way–he credited Kelvin’s calculation for proving, through its absurdity, that there must be an unknown source of energy in nature!)

    The bets were “unknown energy source”, not accounted for, which turned out to be nuclear physics. The equivalent here is that we’re calculating the entropy of the system incorrectly; just as in the solar case we calculated the rate of burn and output incorrectly.

    True, but there’s a difference between performing the steps of the calculation incorrectly, and basing the calculation off incorrect theoretical assumptions. Kelvin’s math was right–his theory was wrong, in a big way.

    If it turned out that animals were actually dumping entropy into another dimension or something, I think that would count as more than just a calculational error; it would signal a fundamental change in our understanding of thermodynamics.

    But if we can every eliminate that, I’d bet against biology. Just as if we could have actually eliminated all “unknown energy source” from the solar case, I would have bet against geology!

    Thing is, that’s exactly what Kelvin thought he did. He observed that the sun’s heat must be gravitational in origin because “no other natural explanation, except by chemical action, can be conceived.”

    He was wrong, of course, but that’s because you can’t actually eliminate unknown energy sources–or unknown entropy sinks, for that matter. That follows from their being unknown! All you can do is eliminate the known ones that are implied by your current understanding of physics.

    But, as you say, our current theories of physics are entirely consistent with our current theories of biology. Except for bumblebee flight, which is clearly a matter of divine fiat.

  162. #162 David Marjanovi?, OM
    November 10, 2008

    I think Raven’s argument at #10 is fairly representative and well said. But is there anyone here who can put their critical thinking cap on and explain what is wrong with his argument or all you all just a bunch of ditto-heads?

    Isolated system, Randy. A system where neither matter nor energy can enter or leave. Living beings are not isolated systems. That’s why growth is possible, why life (DNA repair and stuff) is at all possible, and why evolution is possible.

  163. #163 frog
    November 10, 2008

    MPhil: we can show that science is the best we have – and that it simply works! It works wonderfully, in fact.

    Agreed. The keyword is show. At some point the whole thing just holds together — and you just point at the multicolored jacket. We have TV’s, nuclear power, cars, computers, extra-solar satellites — either accept science or go live in a cave: no other alternative is acceptable.

    I’m aiming at the folks who claim an elementary school type of science where you hypothesize, experiment, then repeat! That’s not science — that’s a science project!

  164. #164 Howard A. Landman
    November 10, 2008

    I once heard an estimate that the average human being has 4 or 5 mutations that their parents don’t. Assuming these are SNPs and are randomly distributed over about 3 billion base pairs, we get that the number of possible mutation-sets is around 9 billion to the 4th or 5th power, or roughly 10 to the 40th or 50th. Let’s assume 1045. Since 103 is roughly 210, that’s 2150, so mutation is generating about 150 bits of uncertainty (informational entropy) in the gene pool for each person born.

    Natural selection reduces this uncertainty by eliminating individuals and genes (mutations) from the population. In a species with stable population and stable genome size, these two tendencies cancel each other on average. The total information content of the species gene pool stays about the same over time, though the specific information will change.

    It can go up if the genome gets bigger (gene duplication, chromosome duplication, full-genome duplication, or lateral gene transfer from another species), if the population gets bigger, or (a little) if the environment temporarily favors more diversity.

    This is probably one reason why full-genome duplication has been so widespread (the vertebrate line has gone through at least 2 rounds of FGD and has a quadrupled genome; some fishes at least 3 and octupled). It’s the easiest way to get a lot of “blank paper”.

  165. #165 frog
    November 10, 2008

    AM: If it turned out that animals were actually dumping entropy into another dimension or something, I think that would count as more than just a calculational error; it would signal a fundamental change in our understanding of thermodynamics.

    I think we’re agreed. It would require a fundamental change in our understanding of thermodynamics — which is exactly why it’s the last possible choice we’ll make, after we’ve exhausted ever other possible mistake we could be making.

    Like writing code — first, you assume a local bug. Then a global bug. Then, that you need more sleep. Next, a library bug. Then finally, an operating system bug. At which point you give up, get drunk and come back again.

  166. #166 Anton Mates
    November 10, 2008

    Which experiment could falsify conservation of energy, in practice? No conservation of energy implies no conservation of momentum, it means a completely different understanding of force — it wrecks everything about physics. Without conservation of mass-energy, you can’t interpret your experiments in the first place — it would be a reboot in physics.

    Not entirely. The uncertainty principles do falsify classical conservation of energy and momentum, and it’s still up in the air (as I understand it) whether these quantities are conserved on a universal scale. But none of these exceptions are sufficiently in-your-face to make the classical conservation laws unusable for most experiments and situations we encounter.

    Likewise, if the 2nd law were found not to hold in the case of evolution, the violation would necessarily be extremely subtle–we already know the 2nd law works just fine for predicting all sorts of behavior in all sorts of systems. So I don’t think you can conclude that “either the 2nd law is correct, or physics breaks.”

  167. #167 Anders
    November 10, 2008

    frog,

    We’re more than willing to eliminate marginal observation that messes up a really satisfying and powerful theory.

    You’re an engineer, aren’t you.

    When I talk about “an observation” now, I obviously don’t mean just one single instance. I did say “repeatable”. I also assume that it has already gone through the usual stages of peer review and reproduction by independent parties.

    If at that stage, theory conflicts with observation, then the theory must be modified. There is no other option, if you want to continue calling yourself scientific.

    The size of the error in the theory isn’t really relevant. Even a small error, if it can be shown to not be due to methodological problems, must be taken into account when designing a theory.

    And no, discovering that energy could be destroyed would not require a reboot of physics, because all previously made observations would still be true. All that would happen is that a new theory is built up, which incorporates the newly discovered phenomenon, along with everything else previously discovered – just as Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics on scales where the relativistic error is small enough.

  168. #168 Eric Atkinson
    November 10, 2008

    “First Law. Heat can be converted to work.
    Second Law. But completely only at Zero Deg. K.

    Third Law. You can’t get to Zero Deg. K.

    Sure you can. Just not in a closed system. Harhar.

    BTW, it’s “Kelvin”, not “degree Kelvin”.”

    I don’t think so bub. You can get close to -273.15Deg.C with
    cryocoolers, but as far as I know 700nK is about the coldest
    temp. produced. So how do you get to zero k in an open system?

    True, people say 0.0 Kelvin, but the scale is based on the Celsius scale, so to me it sounds like saying ” the temperature is 79F.” Six of one and half dozen of the other

  169. #169 Michael
    November 10, 2008

    Best post for a few weeks — I’m so glad someone covered entropy from this perspective

  170. #170 Owlmirror
    November 10, 2008

    You can’t get to Zero Deg. K.

    Sure you can. Just not in a closed system.

    Ahem.

    ΔxΔp ≥ ?/2

    So far, the above has met observation, as far as I know.

    Or were you being facetious?

  171. #171 noncarborundum
    November 10, 2008

    If there couldn’t be local decreases in entropy, then how could we ever build a bridge, skyscraper, type a letter, or do anything for that matter? Physics would be violated any time us humans tried to create complexity in this world, and surely the godbots don’t think this is happening, right?

    DaveScot over at UhDuh, for one, says right out that he violates 2LoT every time he sits down to type at his keyboard. At first blush you might think that, if we can violate 2LoT any time we wish, that must mean it’s no big deal if evolution does too — but no. Apparently it’s his spiritual component that does the violating; his physical body couldn’t do this by itself. Thus the only way for the development of life through violation of 2LoT can occur is if it’s similarly driven by a spiritual force.

  172. #172 Vincent
    November 10, 2008

    I do not get why such a complicated case as to be made.

    Here how I would rebuck it :

    the second law of thermodynamics states that entopy of CLOSED systems increases.
    Atoms/Molecules/DNA/Cells/Organism are NOT CLOSED.

    end of it.

    A drawing about that :
    http://bp1.blogger.com/_8DsgTX-uczM/SFHn5JNanKI/AAAAAAAAA78/AXPpVfo92_8/s1600-h/youtube.jpg
    :-)

  173. #173 noncarborundum
    November 10, 2008
    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    No, it’s not a necessity at all. Otherwise most scientists would be in trouble there.

    Just to be clear, about 40% of U.S. scientists believe in a personal God, and the rest express “doubt or disbelief”, according to 1996 survey. I haven’t found the breakdown, but one might suspect that the doubters outnumber the outright disbelievers, as they do in the society at large, in which case it’s true that the majority don’t find that denial is necessary. On the other hand, if you focus in on the subset of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences (whom the survey team calls “‘greater’ scientists”), things change quite a bit. Nearly 3/4 of them express personal disbelief and only 20% are agnostic – leaving only 7% believers.

  174. #174 abb3w
    November 10, 2008

    Since it bears repeating: see “Natural selection for least action”, by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). To boil that down: when the second law of thermodynamics expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.

    The Steyer paper is doi:10.1119/1.2973046 if any one cares (or for that matter, even if they don’t).

  175. #175 abb3w
    November 10, 2008

    Vincent: it’s more effective to be able to note that not only does their “entropy increases” Second Law require closed systems, but to be able to note that for open systems connected by mass-energy flows, evolution is a direct result of that Second Law.

  176. #176 Kel
    November 10, 2008

    Just to be clear, about 40% of U.S. scientists believe in a personal God, and the rest express “doubt or disbelief”, according to 1996 survey

    For personal God it’s not a huge amount, but if you take God as any concept from personal to pantheist I thought the number was around 60%.

  177. #177 Blake Stacey
    November 10, 2008

    PurpleTurtle (#113):

    I thought that a singularity was the highest form of order, and that increasing complexity was therefore an increase in disorder, no matter how well it appeared organized? Is this totally wrong, or as a scientific moron, am I just simplifying things to the point of unhelpful?

    You’re trying to reason with some frightfully ill-defined terms, which is rather a recipe for trouble! “Singularity”, for example, is meaningless in this context. It is true that, generally speaking, making a system more “complex” means that more information is necessary to describe it. This is the sense that the string of characters “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA” is simpler than, say, “QOP4E3YP8709UPWYTENVAPIWYT5OH”. For a string of the former type, all you have to say is, “Type so-and-so many As in a row”, while the latter string probably doesn’t have a description much shorter than itself.

    “Entropy” has a precise, technical meaning, and scientists have technical definitions for “complexity”. It’s when you try to map these ideas onto woolly words like “order” and “disorder”, which have all sorts of emotional baggage of their own, that difficulties are likely to arise.

    Also, is there a reading list knocking around along the lines of science for total beginners who don’t want to read books aimed at 5 year olds?

    Anything by Larry Gonick, anything by Carl Zimmer. For what you might find to be a useful perspective on entropy and how it relates to “order”, try Richard Feynman’s The Character of Physical Law. A few parts are out of date, mostly in the last chapter; Feynman’s QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter is a good way to start catching up. (The only things I’d add to the latter book are that yes, we did find the top quark, and the work of Ken Wilson and company has somewhat drawn the fangs of the “renormalization” problem.)

  178. #178 Michael
    November 10, 2008

    I love when creationists claim to care so much about the Laws of Thermodynamics while in the process of arguing for the ultimate perpetual motion machine.

  179. #179 Gary Bohn
    November 10, 2008

    QDA,

    Does acceptance of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory necessitate denying that a God might exist?

    Well that depends on which god you happen to consider the ‘real’ god. In the case of the creationist’s god, who supposedly created humans from whole cloth, sorry, dust, had his creations mess up on him which of course forced him, an omnipotent, omniscient but apparently childishly temperamental superdude, to punish them while kindly including a future out from eternal damnation for some of their descendants, the answer is a resounding yes. Without the salvation that comes from the death of god’s alter ego and sacrificial lamb* Jesus, modern Christians have no link to god, so evolution, which shows Adam and Eve and their subsequent offspring could not have existed, pretty much removes the reason for their faith.

    To a Biblical literalist, common descent and an old Earth both mean god didn’t do what he said he did.

    However if the ‘real’ god is just your average ‘hide in the gaps’ kind of guy, evolution really can’t even suggest he doesn’t exist because even as the gaps become fewer and fewer, eventually he will retreat to an area where evoluton just doesn’t apply … unless you conflate evolution with atheism and atheism with abiogenesis, star evolution and the BB.

    Unless we eventually understand everything perfectly there is always a place for a nameless intelligent designer.

    How’s that for a non-answer?

    *If you or I needed to sacrifice ourselves to …** ourselves… even though we are immortal and not sacrificable, before we could forgive our creations for being naughty children as we knew they would be, we would be quite correctly considered nuts.

    **substitute dramatic pause for ‘…’.

  180. #180 jufulu, FDC
    November 10, 2008

    Life is a meta-stable state.

  181. #181 Eric Atkinson
    November 10, 2008

    “Daniel Styer has published an eminently useful article on “Entropy and Evolution”

    Anybody got a copy they want to share?

  182. #182 John Morales
    November 10, 2008

    Gary @179, nice explanation.

    BTW, re “modern Christians”, that would be those belonging to one of the 39,000 Christian denominations. It can be fun to lurk on Christian boards and watch the venomous internecine feuding between those who profess love and forgiveness.

  183. #183 John Morales
    November 11, 2008

    EA @181, that was funny.

  184. #184 John A Anderson
    November 11, 2008

    I always answer the entropy argument by pointing to my house. After all, it started with a disorganized pile of lumber, nails and bricks. Now look at it. It’s a filthy, crappy heap worth half what I paid … Oh, yeah. Maybe they’re right.

  185. #185 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    Well it seems that Randy Stimpson has STILL managed not to show himself and argue for his presumed rightness. I guess he wants to remain delusional. Besdies, The 2nd Law isn’t a law of energy so much as statistics. I’ve read Brian Greene’s books The Elegent Universe and Thbe Fabric of Spacetime, and mostly it is just that things are easier to break than unbreak, snd that is the statictical aspect that makes it a law, the part that says it won’t suddenly decrease for no reason.

  186. #186 negentropyeater
    November 11, 2008

    abb3w,

    but to be able to note that for open systems connected by mass-energy flows, evolution is a direct result of that Second Law.

    ?? Please explain ??

  187. #187 AJS
    November 11, 2008

    The bit the Creationists missed is simple.

    It’s not absolutely impossible to create a local decrease in entropy — it just requires Work to be done.

    The fact that an air conditioner works at all, shows that a localised decrease in entropy is possible. The electricity meter counting down faster while the aircon is on, shows that Work is being done while this happens.

  188. #188 Valhar2000
    November 11, 2008

    Well, as soon as I hear someone calling entropy “disorder” I know the coming argument will be only mildly informative at the very, very best. I never thought that making a usable estimate of the change in entropy caused by evolving life was currently possible, however. This is very cool.

  189. #189 Mark
    November 11, 2008

    When people tell me they don’t believe in evolution because of the second law, I ask them if they believe in refrigerators.

  190. #190 Stefan
    November 11, 2008

    > I knew we kept physicists around for something; they are so useful for filling in the tricky details.

    Thank you. I’ve always had the suspicion that my job might be a useful one.

  191. #191 jim
    November 11, 2008

    @Loren Petrich (#43): You’re overestimating the Bard, I’m afraid. A byte from a file of ASCII text doesn’t have 8 bits of entropy; if it did, you wouldn’t be able to compress text, when in fact it compresses very well. The actual entropy is about 1 bit per character (Shannon estimated it as between 0.6 and 1.3), so you’re probably out by a factor of 8.

    Re the Three Snarks of Thermodynamics: The usual followup is to note that all the major belief systems of the world are based on denying one of the laws. Capitalism is the belief that you can win; communism is the belief that you can break even; religion is the belief that you can quit the game.

  192. #192 St
    November 11, 2008

    Don’t ask about refrigerators, ask them if they believe that water can freeze in winter. Ice has lower entropy than liquid water…

  193. #193 samson
    November 11, 2008

    Hey guys.I have a creationist friend who says the argument goes like this.Thermodynamics doesn’t stop order.It stops complex biological systems from forming.Prigogine showed that simple things like crystals can form,but creationists know that energy is not enough to violate thermodynamics.It requires a machine that can do work.That machine must already be complex or already contain the information for complex machinery.Since something like an embryo or seed already contains the information and complexity to do work,it is able to evercome the second law.”biological machines” are not simply in order, rather they are complex. One cannot separate one part from other otherwise there would be no function. Crystallization of ice is much different from complexity of a cell.

  194. #194 negentropyeater
    November 11, 2008

    Thermodynamics doesn’t stop order.

    Meaningless.

    It stops complex biological systems from forming.

    Obviously FALSE.

    creationists know that energy is not enough to violate thermodynamics.

    Meaningless.

    It requires a machine that can do work.

    What does “it” refer to ?

    Since something like an embryo or seed already contains the information and complexity to do work,it is able to evercome the second law.”biological machines” are not simply in order, rather they are complex.

    No, it doesn’t have to overcome the 2nd law, as it simply doesn’t apply to an obviously open thermodynamic system such as an embryo or a seed.

    Tell your creationist friend that ridiculous mumbo-jumbo is not considered a valid scientific argument.

  195. #195 Cancuk
    November 11, 2008

    In 1984 I attended a lecture given by Prigogine called “the meaning of the second law” which was given at the ETH, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Zürich, the school Einstein went to. I doubt that the creationists even understand, in any real sense, exactly what the second law means.

    A number of things come together here to make it more than likely that life could arise and evolve. Prigogine’s demonstration of order arising out of chaos, the notion that a flux of matter and energy are readily available in the biosphere and that there is no violation of the second law in this system, and the ideas that have arisen from Wolfram’s research on the game of life – that a tiny number of very simple rules of behaviour, applied repetitively, iteratively, can produce structures of astonishing complexity.

    I don’t think these guys have a clue about the case FOR evolution. They have a predetermined pitch they want to make, and they say any stupid shit to support it.

  196. #196 Owlmirror
    November 11, 2008

    “eric williams”+panspermia = Charlie Wagner, crackpot

  197. #197 Daniel Cring
    November 11, 2008

    As a biological anthropologist, I’m interested in explaining why creationists exist, and why they appear to be growing in activity, if not in numbers. Creationism is but one symptom of religious revitalisation movements in many of the world’s religions- not just the biblical big three: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

  198. #198 Jason A.
    November 11, 2008

    “Prigogine showed that simple things like crystals can form,but creationists know that energy is not enough to violate thermodynamics.”

    Is this like the thermodynamics equivalent to the ‘microevolution not macroevolution’ thing? You friend says that, okay, a little order can arise, just not too much.

    Where’s the cutoff between ‘simple’ order like crystals and ‘complex’ order like life forms? What causes it? As it is, all he has is a special pleading fallacy

  199. #199 Jason A.
    November 11, 2008

    Oh, and:
    “creationists know that energy is not enough to violate thermodynamics”
    What exactly do creationists think thermodynamics is about, if not energy?

  200. #200 Anita
    November 11, 2008

    I truthfully don’t think you people (evolutionists) are thinking logically here at all.

    For one thing, what happens to a pen when you throw it up into the air? Yes it has all this great trusted energy as its going up, but than it eventually comes crashing down.

    The calculations for disorder done in the opening paragraphs of this forum suggest that the sun allows for more order. However I think that this is just an temporary illusion. In the long run (just like the pen) things become completely disordered and do not have any more energy to appear ordered. Such as water running upstream, or ice melting and crystallizing, metabolism, digestion, condensation, or a seed and an embryo.

    These things are just temporary illusions. Thus in the overall scheme of things, they are becoming disorder.

    Life (such as a seed or embryo) has only the exact amount of thrusting energy it needs to allow it to grow and serve its purpose. This “information” was ALREADY previously assigned to it in the blueprint of its DNA (assigned by the creator). There is no mechanism that shows us that DNA can evolve… meaning it has no available assigned energy left other than to procreate and pass on its genetic material. A living thing only has enough time and energy to be born, live and die.

    Conclusion… Entropy is eventually closing in on all of us. The Universe tells us this! It is steadily loosing gas. This means less stars are being born and eventually the lights will all go out.

    Additionally, the Human geno can only replicate offspring so many times before things go haywire. That is why we should not have kids with our brothers or sisters.

    All these little technicalities concerning entropy or the labeled 2nd law of thermodynamics are just inconsistencies that serve for nothing. It serves no purpose in arguing about these technicalities especially when one opens their eyes and truly LOOKS – our resources are diminishing.

  201. #201 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 11, 2008

    This “information” was ALREADY previously assigned to it in the blueprint of its DNA (assigned by the creator).

    Aaaaaaaand fail. You sure tried to sound like you had a point, then you brought the ultimate get out of science free card.

  202. #202 Sven DiMilo
    November 11, 2008

    Anita, may I respectfully ask you to consider the concept that you don’t have anyh idea what you’re talking about?

  203. #203 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    I wonder about creobots. They claim that the second law doesn’t seem to apply to evolution, but where do they present their information? Why do they post it here, instead of writing up a nice paper following the rules of science and submitting it to an appropriate peer reviewed journal for publication? Maybe because they know their arguments are just sophistry, not scientific, and will not pass peer review. Very telling about the strength of their arguments at the end of the day.

  204. #204 SC
    November 11, 2008

    you people (evolutionists)

    Personally, I prefer Pete Rooke’s “arch-Darwinists.”

  205. #205 Sven DiMilo
    November 11, 2008

    Dharn htypos

  206. #206 Steve_C
    November 11, 2008

    Wow. I thought she was gonna go all woo-new-age on us…

    She’s completely lost.

  207. #207 Emmet Caulfield
    November 11, 2008

    I’m working on the assumption that Anita@201 is yet another “humourous” Poe. Personally, I don’t find the “pretending to be a pig-ignorant spankweasel” genre particularly amusing.

  208. #208 Matt Heath
    November 11, 2008

    In the long run (just like the pen) things become completely disordered and do not have any more energy to appear ordered.

    Well that is true. No one is saying otherwise. Any decrease in entropy will be local both in space and time. As Keynes had it in the long run we are all dead. And in long run all or societies will collapse and any thought we had including any concept of a god will be forgotten. All species, including our own, will one day be extinct. Each planet that has supported life will eventually stop doing so. At some point the universe will be too disordered to support anything as complicated as life.

    We aren’t IN the long term. Not by physics’ standards. all of life on Earth is the short term. We are simply a somewhat interesting temporary blip in a vast universe. Learn to love the impermanence.

  209. #209 samson
    November 11, 2008

    Anita basically said much of the same things my friend said.Only,at least she sounded like a 5th rather than second grader.That must be on one of the creationist websights they go to.

  210. #210 Emmet Caulfield
    November 11, 2008

    I have a creationist friend who says … that machine must already be complex or already contain the information for complex machinery.

    No, this isn’t required. The apparent problem of information increase from one generation to the next in general constructive automata (self-replicating machines) was a conundrum until the 1949, when it was resolved by John von Neumann. IIRC, the parent machine passing along a complete blueprint of itself (which, of course, all living things do via DNA inter alia), only places a lower bound on the information in the child machine. McMullin gives a pretty good historical summary of work on variations of this problem. Of course, it is also empirically observed in biology, so this creationist canard holds no water whatsoever.

  211. #211 Emmet Caulfield
    November 11, 2008

    If anyone wants a spare definite article, there’s one in my #211

  212. #212 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    MY GOD!! (or rather, MY VOID!!) i can’t believ i never posted this link :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

    any and all complaints should address these specific possibilities and how they are wrong and violate the 2nd LoT

  213. #213 ConcenedJoe
    November 11, 2008

    Man ask dem creabots to chew on this a bit…

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law

    Damn scientists always making things weeell… complex and controversial! Gosh god is much easier to understand!

  214. #214 negentropyeater
    November 11, 2008

    Recipie for an anitalicious post

    You will need :

    -a few scientific terms : eg entropy, energy, disorder, information, …
    -a few undisclosed definitions of said terms, of your own imagination
    -a random generator
    -text to fill, to your own liking

    First, with the help of the random generator, start by assigning the definitions to the terms and repeat until you have a sufficient quantity of freshly processed terms.
    It is important in this process that you make absolutely sure that you, nor anybody, understands what these terms could possibly mean.

    Sprinkle the freshly processed terms in the available text.

    There you have it, a wonderful anitalicious post, ready to provide endless wonder and bemusement for all.

  215. #215 SC
    November 11, 2008

    Emmet – you’re best! I’ll put it aside for future. Thanks!

  216. #216 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    What I don’t get about the SLoT creationists is how they think babies are made. We see descent with modification every time there is a birth. Why does that not violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics yet the same process over a long period does?

  217. #217 PurpleTurtle
    November 11, 2008

    @Blake Stacey (#177)

    Thankyou, and noted :)

  218. #218 samson
    November 11, 2008

    Posted by: Kel | November 11, 2008 4:42 PM

    What I don’t get about the SLoT creationists is how they think babies are made. We see descent with modification every time there is a birth. Why does that not violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics yet the same process over a long period does?

    Hey kel.The response i got was that living things already contain the information to do all of those things.(of course implying here that a god created and programmed this to happen)And of course that followed by the old most mutations are bad argument.

  219. #219 Fatboy
    November 11, 2008

    Matt Heath already beat me to my main response to Anita. I did notice one more thing, though.

    A living thing only has enough time and energy to be born, live and die.

    Some of us manage to find enough time and energy to comment on blogs, too.

  220. #220 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    i always thought there was a sort of caveat for the second law, and that was that overall, “disorder” would have to increase slower the futher in time we were to go from a specific event, due to the fact that disorder of a pile of papers on a desk isn’t going to be altered if this stack were to topple over and spread out. it is simplistic, but the idea is that entropy makes big differences the futher back in time we go (which is precisely how the ‘arrow of time’ came to be defined). I am only making a guess as to this property, but i have been compelled by it nonetheless.

    A separate issue, how is talkorigins.org NOT credible? i ran into someone else on another blog who thinks this and i am at a loss as to why that would be the case.any help guys, i would appreciate it.

  221. #221 Anton Mates
    November 11, 2008

    For one thing, what happens to a pen when you throw it up into the air? Yes it has all this great trusted energy as its going up, but than it eventually comes crashing down.

    Barring air resistance, Anita, a pen comes back down with the same energy it had going up. That’s what makes the crash, in fact.

  222. #222 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    Hey kel.The response i got was that living things already contain the information to do all of those things.(of course implying here that a god created and programmed this to happen)And of course that followed by the old most mutations are bad argument.

    Yeah, that’s pretty much been my experience too. I’ve even tried explaining it in very simple terms (I started with “when mummy and daddy love each other”) and got ignored for being condescending. Which is fair enough, for someone who kept saying evolution couldn’t happen because of thermodynamics they demonstrated the intellect of a 5 year old.

    And that’s one thing that really grinds my gears. It seems all creationists love to use the phrase “I’m a fan of science”, and make it out like they aren’t being hostile to science – yet they are just ignoring it. It’s just the same as the “I’m not a racist, but” comment where people are admonishing their own guilt by trying to make it seem like they are onside. Nothing but mental manipulation, it might work on others but it won’t work on anyone who actually knows anything about science.

  223. #223 bombay mix
    November 11, 2008

    Why can’t evolutionists and creationists accept the fact that you are probably all wrong?

  224. #224 Emmet Caulfield
    November 11, 2008

    Some of us manage to find enough time and energy to comment on blogs, too.

    … and fornicate. Don’t forget fornication.

  225. #225 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    Bombay, there is overwhelming evidence showing that evolution has occurred. There is no evidence to support creationism. So we are right, they are wrong. When the creationists finally admit they are wrong, we will get along.

  226. #226 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    um, so no one has an opinion on what i said huh? *sigh* you can argue with idiots anytime, but i’m here to learn something guys.

  227. #227 Owlmirror
    November 11, 2008

    A separate issue, how is talkorigins.org NOT credible? i ran into someone else on another blog who thinks this and i am at a loss as to why that would be the case.

    Because reality has a known liberal bias?

  228. #228 Owlmirror
    November 11, 2008

    Entropy is a red herring, used to distract us from the main issue: ORGANIZATION.

    Give me one, just one example of an increase in logical entropy without intelligent input.

    Word salad, Charlie. Pure word salad.

  229. #229 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    EW, can you reference a peer-reviewed journal article for your claim? Or are you just hot air?

  230. #230 IST
    November 11, 2008

    EW> Organisation you say? So, the overall decrease in the complexity of matter over time as a result of the expansion of the universe, supernovae, etc isn’t a decrease in organisation? The concept of heat death seems to me to be a massive increase in entropy, local increases aside.
    Logical entropy? or local, did you mean? Increases in LOCAL entropy can be readily observed… Hint: ever heard of a nebula?

  231. #231 Emmet Caulfield
    November 11, 2008

    Shorter Eric Williams:

    How many yellow dreams smell like buffalo?

    Hah! Take that, evilutionists!

  232. #232 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    what do you mean owlmirror “liberal bias” they would still be scientifically correst right?

    EW: ARE you for real?! what the hell is logical entropy? What about snow, you dumbass, it happens all the time; millions of trillions of water molecules organise themselves in very ordered faxhion and guess what? Clouds have no brains!

  233. #233 Zarquon
    November 11, 2008

    Protons organise themselves into more complex helium nuclei without intelligent input.

    4p -> ? + 2e+ + 2?

  234. #234 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    EA, failure to cite a scientific journal to back up your claims means you are nothing but hot air.

    Nothing to see here. Go about your business.

  235. #235 Sven DiMilo
    November 11, 2008

    In other words, things don’t organize themselves without intelligent input.

    You did, as an embryo. Crystals and snowflakes do. Ants.

  236. #236 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    he won’t accept embryo, cus there’s DNA in there. Ants also have instict and rudimentary intelligence. Zarquon, what about all the other elements up until iron which are produced in fussion as well? what about the forming of a galactic disk from gravity? what about the structure of the entire universe for christs sake, which was produced by the hyperinflation of spacetime in the early universe (which by the way, dramatically lowered entropy. that’s more than one example. you fail

  237. #237 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    people who say intelligence have one big problem to overcome: we are all entirely composed of unintelligent matter, so what you say is baseless in the first place. The “life from life” argument was refuted the very first time they synthesised urea

  238. #238 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    In other words, things don’t organize themselves without intelligent input.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yldmXWu745w

  239. #239 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    EA, if you such a hotshot argument, you should quit bothering us with it, and write it up properly and send it to an appropriate scientific journal. If it disproves evolution, I would recommend Science or Nature to ensure your Nobel prize.

    But then, if you are full of hot air……

  240. #240 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    Ahh, irreducible complexity. That problem was solved almost a century before we had even heard of Behe.

  241. #241 Emmet Caulfield
    November 11, 2008

    eric williams @240

    Fuck off with the copy’n’paste from Charlie Wagner’s website, you pathetic troll.

  242. #242 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    Well, well, EA (CQ) ain’t long for this blog.

  243. #243 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    ok i get your drift, you’re saying irreducable complexity:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

  244. #244 Owlmirror
    November 11, 2008

    what do you mean owlmirror “liberal bias” they would still be scientifically correst right?

    Of course. That’s the whole point. talkorigins cites reality-based science. Creationists perceive that very citation of reality based science as “bias”.

    BTW, “Reality has a known liberal bias” is a joke originally made by Stephen Colbert. Except it isn’t actually a joke; anti-evolutionists are opposed to reality.

    PS: “eric williams” is a sockpuppet for Charlie Wagner, as I pointed out above.

    When you see the same arguments being made in the same style over time, you just automatically recognize them.

    Have you read a book on developmental biology or cellular biology or evolutionary biology yet, Charlie? I bet you haven’t.

  245. #245 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    CW, not CQ. DOH *headdesk*

  246. #246 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    yeah, that is what i thought it would be like owlmirror. thanks.

    DAMN YOU KEL!!! not only did you refute him first, but your article is better than mine. Damn you! i just loved how you all pounded him at nearly the same millisecond. hilarious

  247. #247 abb3w
    November 11, 2008

    negentropyeater: ?? Please explain ??

    Again, see the paper on it: “Natural selection for least action”, by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). When the second law of thermodynamics is expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.

  248. #248 Emmet Caulfield
    November 11, 2008

    PS: “eric williams” is a sockpuppet for Charlie Wagner, as I pointed out above.

    Oh FFS. So, it’s a drooling imbecile sockpuppet rather than a sniveling sycophant plagiarising a drooling imbecile.

    Is that better or worse?

  249. #249 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    #252
    now i know why they say athiests are angry and hateful. Geez

  250. #250 Anton Mates
    November 11, 2008

    And each of these functions are organized in such a way that they support the other functions and the overall function of the mousetrap, which is to catch mice.

    What features of the mousetrap itself tell you that its function is to catch mice, rather than to catch voles, or to catch the fingers of people reaching into dark places, or to be a one-shot percussion instrument?

    The important point is that the adaptation of means to ends, the adaptation of structure and process to function requires insight.

    If that’s the important point, you will no doubt provide evidence that such adaptation requires insight, rather than just asserting that it does over and over again.

    A mousetrap is unevolvable without intelligent input, not because you can’t take it apart without it losing it’s function, it’s unevolvable because you can’t put it together in the first place using only random, non-directed, accidental occurrences.

    Have you tried?

  251. #251 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    Rickroll, CW has been banned:
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php

    He shouldn’t be posting here.

  252. #252 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    the base of a mousetrap is unnecessary. You could use the floor as a base. Therefore the mouseztrap isn’t irreducibly complex

  253. #253 Monado
    November 11, 2008

    #48: what charley: said: if entropy precludes evolution, it precludes snowflakes!

  254. #254 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    still, my point stands, nerd. a simple “aloha” is good enough. he doesn’t deserve our replies, mush less our anger

  255. #255 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    Rickroll, when a person is stupid enough to sockpuppet, which is using a second moniker to either create controversy or evade the ban, that is another crime committed, so we can lambaste them. We aren’t polite to those who don’t obey PZ’s rules.

  256. #256 Monado
    November 11, 2008

    #13, I believe that PZ blogged about this in “Creationists almost discover the sun.”

    The sun doesn’t count!? Who makes the damned rules?

  257. #257 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    still, my point stands, nerd. a simple “aloha” is good enough. he doesn’t deserve our replies, mush less our anger

  258. #258 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    i didn’t mean to post it twice lol. actually, i use a differnt moniker sometimes (not on this site), but only for a specific subject that makes it seem like “the enemy” isn’t telling them to do it:
    http://johnshoreland.com/2007/09/16/what-the-atheists-taught-me/
    see, nothing evil there lol

  259. #259 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    DAMN YOU KEL!!! not only did you refute him first, but your article is better than mine. Damn you! i just loved how you all pounded him at nearly the same millisecond. hilarious

    Have you read Orr’s review of Darwin’s Black Box?

  260. #260 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    Jerry Coyne’s review is well worth the read too.

  261. #261 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    nope. I don’t read psuedo science (unless Hofstadter is psuedo scitntific. *gasp* i hope not)

  262. #262 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    It’s well worth the read

  263. #263 negentropyeater
    November 11, 2008

    abb3w,

    thx, restating the evolutionary principle by natural selection in terms of statistical Physics and chemical thermodynamics, but that’s simply … great stuff !

    (Sorry hadn’t noticed that you had already provided the link in your previous comment)

  264. #264 IST
    November 11, 2008

    EW/Creationist Troll> I responded to your question reasonably, as did others… care to reply? Or is that beyond you today? Of course, you can simply rehash Behe’s refuted arguments again if you prefer…

  265. #265 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    i think he was axed i don’t even see his comment anymore IST. oh well, no big deal i guess.

  266. #266 Nerd of Redhead
    November 11, 2008

    Rickroll, IST, it looks like PZ went through and deleted all the banned persons posts. He won’t be back under that moniker.

  267. #267 Kel
    November 11, 2008

    He won’t be back under that moniker.

    But he’ll be back under another. The guy just can’t take a hint, even when that tap on the shoulder is done by a sledgehammer. If he can’t learn how evolution works, how’s he going to learn his inane ramblings are unwelcome here?

  268. #268 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    yep indeed. so what do you think about my statement of slowing of entropy, Nerd?

  269. #269 Rickr0ll
    November 11, 2008

    nerd has left the builing. i still want someone to comment on what i said, i want to know if i’m way out in left feild on that one. how about Kel?

  270. #270 Owlmirror
    November 11, 2008

    If he can’t learn how evolution works, how’s he going to learn his inane ramblings are unwelcome here?

    And not just evolution. He doesn’t want to learn anything about how science in general works, either.

    I pointed out that his steady-state universe was contradicted by the big-bang model of the universe, and his “eternal regress of life” was therefore contradicted by basic cosmology and astrophysics. Did he pay attention to this? He did not.

    He’s a silly old crackpot.

    And he’ll probably be back.

  271. #271 Rickr0ll
    November 12, 2008

    but while he’s gone we don’t need to talk about him. all this bad mouthing is counter-productive. he’s wasted enough of our time while he WAS here, quit helping him steal our sanity

  272. #272 Kenneth Barr
    November 12, 2008

    We dont even need to do entropy calculations (which i think were grossly underestimated). Biochemistry gives us the answer. All lifeforms get their complex macromolecules by some set of reactions that increase entropy. We do it largely through the breakdown of glucose into water and carbon dioxide. Not only that, but every step in our metabolic pathways gives an overall increase in entropy!!!!

    So evolution has drastically increased entropy, as it has lead to this entropy-increasing metabolism we have.

  273. #273 Rickr0ll
    November 12, 2008

    indeed Ken-bar, protazoans use alot less energy and disperse less of it than say a tree. and the same tree uses monumentally less energy than a shrew, which is an incredibally entropic critter. But i think that intelligence (while itself the faculty of which is very energy intessive- the brain uses some thing like 80% of our energy) actually seeks to lessen the effect of entropy on the world (all of our inventions utilise this property). i think that really, though energy increases, this also allows more flexability with it as well

  274. #274 Rickr0ll
    November 12, 2008

    i think really, though that as ENTropy increases, this also allows more flexability as well

  275. #275 jo5ef
    November 12, 2008

    OK this is a great discussion on a subject I find endlessly fascinating so while we’ve got you all here:

    If seems all agree that living organisms can be seen as a special type of ordered system that can arise from a disordered environment under certain conditions given sufficient energy input. However it seems no one has any idea why this should be (Note I am talking about the origin of life here, I have no problem with evolution by NS). Obviously the religious folks will seize upon this and say Aha! You cant explain it therefore god is the causative agent, however what I’d like to see is someone come up with some scientific principal that will predict how and why this should occur. I think that if the puzzle of the origin of life is framed in this way, we might have some hope of arriving at a satisfying explanation. It appears to me that it may to come down to the complex relationship between information and thermodynamics which my feeble brain has been mulling over for 10 years and, with the kind of brainpower I see here on these subjects I think we have a chance to crack this.
    It appears to me that there are two possibilities: there are such principles but we don’t yet know what they are (the Laws of infodynamics?) or: we don’t need any new laws or principals to explain the origin of life (in which case why has no one come up with a convincing explanation?). I’m inclined to the first but am open to other points of view, any takers? (I know im going to get shredded here, but it’ll be worth it).

  276. #276 Arnosium Upinarum
    November 12, 2008

    It’s always been obvious that creationist/ID/anti-evolutionists who use the complexity-vs-entropy argument to dismiss evolution (or ANY process) as capable of producing local pockets of complexity within a larger system, have no intention of arguing WITHIN any understanding of the science, but IN SPITE of it: their entire “argument”, of course, consists of wanting to sound and look scientific.

    They use the word “entropy” or raise the concept of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as a means of striking a blow against evolution (the target idea which they do not resist on any scientific grounds in the first place, but literally “hate” purely on ideological grounds). Their ground of argumentation is must obviously be mired entirely in rhetoric…or “the sell”.

    Always glad to see ANOTHER nice treatment that puts the nonsense away, but this one better helps to specifically target their claims.

    Alas, they won’t understand it, but they don’t have to in order to sound sufficiently knowledgable to those who listen to them as they pretend to refute it. They KNOW that the folks they’re talking to who throw money at them know as little as they do, and will continue to listen attentively. The moolah is a powerful inducement. Cultivating it as a sustainable resource is desirable. The product of the harvest are most desirable. Such are the beneficial fruits of Good Housekeeping Salesmanship.

    Sean Carrol #12: you’re right. Those aren’t strictly the same. (The reduction in the # of microstates with generations isn’t strictly the same as the degrees of freedom rearranged). It IS “possible to fix that part up just a bit” – and there are some other things that might stand it to. Cleans it up; “same conclusion, obviously”. Looking forward to seeing how you do it.

    The mathematics are definitely indispensible, but only to those who can grasp it; yet there are LOTS of ways to demonstrate or express all of this and they don’t have to be hidden within a language that’s opaque to non-mathematicians. It is not only possible but OKAY to translate the concepts in “plain language” for the consumption of the general public…WITHOUT dumbing it down, PLEASE! That’s the most injurious cop-out (or outright incompetence) of institutional “outreach” programs. The VERY WORST of the trend comes about by these institutions salivating over the success of popular modes of stroking the public, as in intensively striving to emulate Hollywood. Every time I see an example of that, I succumb to a twinge of despair.

    It’s a duty of every scientist to help out in educating a public that is not only uninformed but alarmingly proud of it. It will NOT be accomplished by feeding the public “science bites” with the equivalent of fast food, like all the other junk that is served to them on the chief priority of “the sell”. It can only be accomplished with real and sincere communication. That’s MUCH harder than pitching a sale, and it will take time. but at least it has the possibility of a positive result.

    Otherwise? All we’re really doing with this public outreach stuff is EXACTLY the same thing that the creationist/ID/antievolutionists are doing. And we don’t realize it EITHER.

  277. #277 Rickr0ll
    November 12, 2008

    i’m sure then than you have looked up the wikipedia article on this very subject then huh? Well Jo3, one of the best examples i got was the thesis of Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglass Hofstadter: any sufficiently powerful system by definition has the inate property of self referance. Meaningless information therefore aquires meaning despite itself.
    i think that this is an essential way to frame the problem, even though the book is now rather antiquated. Please do yourself a service and read this escellent book. it may help you out on this.

  278. #278 IST
    November 12, 2008

    He’s gone? nice… a chance for an intelligent discussion…

    K. Barr and Rickroll> Obn the Biochemical entropy argument: Does the synthesis of macromolecules, using energy resulting from ATP pathways, actually result in an increase in entropy? I’ve not bothered calculating (although my students may be doing that as a review today just so I can see the results), but it seems that this wouldn’t be the case. Only the final decomposition of organisms would result in an increase in entropy. Again, not a closed system, so it doesn’t matter, but I would take issue with that statement until it is demonstrated otherwise. It’s also possible I misinterpreted what you meant, and that you were implying that the acquisition of macromolecules or energy from outside sources constitutes an increase in entropy (mirroring the input from the Sun), in which case I have no argument.

  279. #279 Velok
    November 12, 2008

    @Anton Mates #161:
    I hope you were joking about the bumblebees and how they can’t fly?

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly

  280. #280 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 12, 2008

    Why can’t evolutionists and creationists accept the fact that you are probably all wrong?

    There’s always that one drive by comment that takes the level of teh dumb to another level.

  281. #281 Mike
    November 12, 2008

    The continued use of this by creationists leads me conclude they are:
    a) too lazy to read the scientific explanation
    or
    b) too stupid to understand the explanation
    or
    c) too dishonest to admit the correctness of the explanation
    or
    some combination of the above

  282. #282 frog
    November 12, 2008

    Anders: And no, discovering that energy could be destroyed would not require a reboot of physics, because all previously made observations would still be true. All that would happen is that a new theory is built up, which incorporates the newly discovered phenomenon, along with everything else previously discovered – just as Relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics on scales where the relativistic error is small enough.

    ????

    Nope — not unless it’s a really marginal observation. I don’t think you really get how observations are made, and how dependent they are on our analytic technique.

    The “observations”, without a 99.999% (as Anton so kindly points out) matchup, would be as useless as the experimental results of the phlogiston scientists. Observations do not pre-exist theory: the mapping is necessary.

    Now, most of the time our theory changes so little in relation to observation that we can adapt previous observation in our new theory — at the end of the day, relativity is not very different from Newtonian physics. But Copernican astronomy made much of the “observation” — and not just theory — of Aristotelian astronomy useless.

    We throw out both observation and theory in a dialectic. That dialectic is the key to science and distinguishes science from the purely aesthetic realms of “knowledge” that preceded it.

    In the short term — science looks as you describe it. But in the long-term, it’s a dialectic. How much pre-Darwinian “observations” do we actually use in biology? Not much — they were looking at the wrong things.

  283. #283 currious?
    November 12, 2008

    Can someone please explain to me why if we have increased entropy such as in digestion or metabolism that in the long run we still end up eventually dying?

    How could such processes create evolution? And why aren’t we “positively” seeing it?

    Basically, what I want to know is how evolution (Darwin’s theory) can defy entropy?

    There has certainly got to be some good scientists here on this forum that can satisfactorily answer this question for me.

  284. #284 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 12, 2008

    Basically, what I want to know is how evolution (Darwin’s theory) can defy entropy?

    It doesn’t

  285. #285 Nerd of Redhead
    November 12, 2008

    I’m not a physical chemist, but with all this talk of entropy, what is being missed is that the free energy (delta G) of the reaction is what drives whether a reaction will go or not. Entropy (delta S) is just one component of the calculation, along with the heat difference (delta H). If the heat given off (or absorbed) is sufficient, the entropy contribution, even if unfavorable, can be overwhelmed. So, if applied to an individual, as long as more heat is being absorbed (sunlight for plants say) or given off (all those that eat plants), the free energy is favorable to run evolution. Entropy is just a red herring.

  286. #286 Rickr0ll
    November 12, 2008

    IST @278: dude, i suck at chemistry, don’t ask me. I was merely talking in general terms about metabolism and entropy.
    #285: On that not Redhead, this post is officially done with. thanks for killing it Nerd

  287. #287 Currious
    November 12, 2008

    #284

    Than I’m not clearly understanding something. Please tell me what the whole argument is about?

  288. #288 Owlmirror
    November 12, 2008

    Than I’m not clearly understanding something. Please tell me what the whole argument is about?

    Perhaps this will help:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

    * the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
    * entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
    * even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

    In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

    # The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

    Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

  289. #289 Kel
    November 12, 2008

    Than I’m not clearly understanding something. Please tell me what the whole argument is about?

    Evolution is descent with modification.

    When a child is born, about half the DNA comes from the father and half from the mother. But there are also some copying errors or random mutations. If these mutations are advantageous they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation that children that don’t have them. Over enough time an isolated population has enough mutations that they cannot produce fertile offspring with other populations of the same species. We call that event speciation. Once two populations cannot exchange DNA, they will continue to diverge.

    Now what part of that violates the second law of thermodynamics?

  290. #290 Currious
    November 12, 2008

    Ok thanks for that #288! (even though your verbiage was still confusing to me).

    But now I have other questions? Firstly, the earth can be looked at as both a open system and a closed system. I tend to view it as a closed system (Earth complete with Universe)because when I look at the Universe “at large” everything seems to be corresponding to the influence of something else (a type of equilibrium). This is likened unto our human body and the cells that work within it, (I would consider a human body to be a closed system in which nothing else can come in except for food and nutrients to sustain it). When we boil everything down, it all deduces to atoms which are composed of everything. If I am wrong in this thinking please correct me.

    Secondly, I can see that there are many processes where things that are in the process of disorder can become ordered, but I see these things as only temporary things. Just like food and nutrients entering the human body where it is used only to “sustain” it for short periods of time before it needs more.

    Thirdly, what I would like to know is if these small increases in entropy can really be seen as “evolution”? Or rather, can this system truly produce enough energy to change all sorts of living species into another?

    I am dismal to think it can. This is because I don’t think this is the “right type” of increased entropy inside of a closed system that can generate things to change.

    Please correct me if I am wrong in this thinking.

  291. #291 Currious
    November 12, 2008

    Hi #289 (thank you for that).

    You said: When a child is born, about half the DNA comes from the father and half from the mother. But there are also some copying errors or random mutations. If these mutations are advantageous they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation that children that don’t have them. Over enough time an isolated population has enough mutations that they cannot produce fertile offspring with other populations of the same species. We call that event speciation. Once two populations cannot exchange DNA, they will continue to diverge.

    I comment: But from what I understand about DNA and copying errors, this is not any sort of evolution. From what I am told, a “mutation” is not an added gene of any sort, rather it is a gene that is missing which usually amounts to a defect that is not favorable. I am also told that tandem repeats in genes do not spell mutation either. I was also informed that not one single “added” gene has ever been observed in any living thing. Additionally I was informed that not even with “natural selection” does it change (add or subtract) the genes, however there are many tandem repeats, but a dog still remains to be a dog.

  292. #292 Kel
    November 12, 2008

    But from what I understand about DNA and copying errors, this is not any sort of evolution. From what I am told, a “mutation” is not an added gene of any sort, rather it is a gene that is missing which usually amounts to a defect that is not favorable.

    No, not all mutations are defects. Most mutations are actually neutral, and each one of us has them. It’s just that we see the bad mutations in a macroscopic way. Mutation is the mechanism of change, natural selection is the quality control and genetic drift is the mechanism of speciation. (all in the basic sense)
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

    I was also informed that not one single “added” gene has ever been observed in any living thing.

    What criteria are you looking for? You can only modify what’s there, that’s evolution.

    Additionally I was informed that not even with “natural selection” does it change (add or subtract) the genes, however there are many tandem repeats, but a dog still remains to be a dog.

    And a human is still a human, and a goldfish is still a goldfish. But if breeds of dog are kept apart from long enough and there are enough of the right kinds of mutations then eventually the isolated breeds will no longer be able to reproduce with fertile offspring. That point is called speciation and after you have that, give enough time and you’ll have divergence in morphology.

    Again, what of this violates the 2nd law?

  293. #293 phantomreader42
    November 12, 2008

    currious @ #291:

    From what I am told, a “mutation” is not an added gene of any sort, rather it is a gene that is missing which usually amounts to a defect that is not favorable. I am also told that tandem repeats in genes do not spell mutation either. I was also informed that not one single “added” gene has ever been observed in any living thing. Additionally I was informed that not even with “natural selection” does it change (add or subtract) the genes, however there are many tandem repeats, but a dog still remains to be a dog.

    Then you have been lied to.

    Every one of these things you have been told is simply a flat-out LIE.
    Mutations include additions, deletions, duplications and rearrangement of genes (among other possibilities I may have left out). The claim that only deletions count is a LIE.
    Some mutations are beneficial to the organism, some are harmful, most are actually neutral. The claim that all (or even most) mutations are harmful is a LIE.
    All these types of mutations have been observed in real, living creatures, both in the lab and and in the wild. To claim otherwise is a LIE.
    Your last sentence is completely incoherent, and to claim it is even intelligible is a LIE.

    The bottom line is, creationists are liars. They have to be, because their delusions cannot survive without being propped up by a never-ending supply of lies.

  294. #294 Kel
    November 12, 2008

    I really don’t get the argument from the 2nd law. What does natural selection, mutation and speciation have to do with thermodynamics?

  295. #295 Nerd of Redhead
    November 12, 2008

    Kel, what I am reading is that several biological properities, like expanding to fill all ecological niches, appear to behave similar to gas laws, where the expansion of a gas into a smaller cylinder is due to entropy effects.

    I’m still not convinced it is entropy, even though it has the appearance of entropy. But then, I’m a bit weak in physical chemistry.

  296. #296 Rickr0ll
    November 12, 2008

    i find it impossible to beleieve that “a dog is still a dog” makes sense to you, you can’t brred a female chiuaua with a great dane. What you’re saying is erroneos from the get-go. Blue eyes, actually, ar a mutation that has spread, and it can be traced back to one man. if that isn’t adding infromarion, i don’t know what is. adaption to environments is the factor that separates the various populations of a speceies and causes different breeds to engender speciation. In fact, “species” is an incredably variable term, because of the amout of evolution that occurs all the time. this is also stated in Talkorigins.org

  297. #297 Kel
    November 12, 2008

    Kel, what I am reading is that several biological properities, like expanding to fill all ecological niches, appear to behave similar to gas laws, where the expansion of a gas into a smaller cylinder is due to entropy effects.

    Fair enough.

    What I don’t get though is how to match that to our observations on biology. We can see descent with modification, evolution is simply that process over a longer time scale. If evolution violated entropy, surely we wouldn’t be able to have offspring. When we have observed mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and speciation, what else is there that could possibly violate thermodynamics?

  298. #298 AJS
    November 12, 2008

    i find it impossible to beleieve that “a dog is still a dog” makes sense to you, you can’t brred a female chiuaua with a great dane. What you’re saying is erroneos from the get-go.

    Logistical difficulties with the traditional method notwithstanding, great Dane sperm will actually fertilise a Chihuahua egg if introduced artificially and the offspring will be fertile.

    All domesticated dogs can also interbreed with wolves to produce fertile offspring. Breeds of dog (including the wolf) are not distinct species.

  299. #299 Anton Mates
    November 12, 2008

    Logistical difficulties with the traditional method notwithstanding, great Dane sperm will actually fertilise a Chihuahua egg if introduced artificially and the offspring will be fertile.

    The same is true of many pairs of distinct species, however. Sometimes the reproductive barrier is behavioral rather than physiological.

    All domesticated dogs can also interbreed with wolves to produce fertile offspring. Breeds of dog (including the wolf) are not distinct species.

    Wolves can also interbreed with coyotes and jackals, however, who are considered separate species.

  300. #300 Rickr0ll
    November 12, 2008

    what about the mule then huh? that is a special example in and of it’s own. as soon as you use the word “artifiscial” you aren’t talking about nature. your argument makes no sense. besides, there is this tendancy of “ring species that form around mountain ranges. There is a few entrys in talk origins in the CC index.

  301. #301 Currious
    November 12, 2008

    #293

    You said: Every one of these things you have been told is simply a flat-out LIE. Mutations include additions, deletions, duplications and rearrangement of genes (among other possibilities I may have left out). The claim that only deletions count is a LIE.

    I say: Okay, I have double checked with certain sources. I think it is you who is misinformed and uneducated on the subject. Yes, there are as you say deletions, duplications and rearrangements, but there are no “additions”. These are just tandem repeats of the same existing information… THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

    Still nothing new is happening here (evolution wise). The word “mutation” is a scary undefined word.

  302. #302 Kel
    November 12, 2008

    Okay, I have double checked with certain sources. I think it is you who is misinformed and uneducated on the subject. Yes, there are as you say deletions, duplications and rearrangements, but there are no “additions”. These are just tandem repeats of the same existing information… THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

    How is it not new information? Just how do you think evolution works? It only modifies what’s there. Gene duplication and modification can lead to increased information.

  303. #304 Currious
    November 12, 2008

    Kel said: How is it not new information? Just how do you think evolution works? It only modifies what’s there. Gene duplication and modification can lead to increased information. Maybe this will help you
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

    I say: Only modifying what’s there is called “natural selection”. And natural selection is not mutation (and many scientists are careful to claim that it is). Since it uses the same genes. The gene sequence can duplicate itself, but again its still using the same information. A rat is still a rat, it cannot change into a cat.

    One of the articles that you supplied said: Rather than get bogged down trying to define what information is, let’s just look at a few other discoveries made by biologists in recent years. For instance, it has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?

    I say: I am familiar with this, but what this article fails to tell us is that something like this does not happen naturally in nature (it has never been observed) only in a laboratory.

  304. #305 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    A rat is still a rat, it cannot change into a cat.

    If you think a rat changing into a cat is evolution, then you really need to go and read up on the basics. Because a rat will never change into a cat. Not in 1 generation, not in 1,000,000 generations. Evolution doesn’t work that way, it doesn’t work anywhere near that way. A rat and a cat share a common ancestor. Just as a rat and a human share a common ancestor. But under no circumstance will a human give birth to a rat, we simply don’t have the genetic code in us to make it so.

    All we can give birth to is slightly mutated humans and over time given enough isolation and genetic drift, the descendants of mine may not be able to reproduce successful offspring with your descendants. At that point there will be two species of human rather than one, and that means that future mutations will not be shared across species.

    Only modifying what’s there is called “natural selection”.

    No, modifying what’s there is called mutation. Whether those mutations survive and mix back into the genepool is a combination of natural selection and genetic drift.

    I am familiar with this, but what this article fails to tell us is that something like this does not happen naturally in nature (it has never been observed) only in a laboratory.

    Nylon-eating bacteria. Mutated and observed in nature. Not that it matters whether it’s observed in nature or the lab, just that it’s observed. Being in a lab offers several advantages too, we can control the environment far more and that way we can take our variables in order to increase our understanding of the processes at hand.

    So what does all this have to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

  305. #306 Owlmirror
    November 13, 2008

    Yes, there are as you say deletions, duplications and rearrangements, but there are no “additions”. These are just tandem repeats of the same existing information… THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

    Sigh.

    It is modification of a repeated gene that can give rise to a new gene that does something genuinely different from the original gene it arose from.

    A simple example is that we know that the human genes for detecting red and green wavelengths arose as a duplication of a gene for detecting a single wavelength in that frequency range (it’s actually more complicated than that, but that’s the simple version).

    New copy of pigment gene + modifications of original and copy of pigment gene = full color vision (as we understand color, anyway).

    It doesn’t happen quickly, but the whole point is that it absolutely does happen.

  306. Kel said,

    I really don’t get the argument from the 2nd law. What does natural selection, mutation and speciation have to do with thermodynamics?

    Not much. If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn’t much of a connection. Think instead of how entropy applies to information. If you begin to randomly modify information (such as DNA) you eventually have nonsense. Evolution argues that random modification of information creates more information rather than turning it into nonsense.

  307. #308 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn’t much of a connection. Think instead of how entropy applies to information. If you begin to randomly modify information (such as DNA) you eventually have nonsense.

    No it doesn’t, and I’m really surprised that you can think it would. I’ve asked for clarification several times in the Texas Petition thread about the matter because after pondering the question I couldn’t see how you would come to that conclusion.

    In nature:
    Good mutations = more likely to be passed on.
    Neutral mutations = no more or less chance to be passed on.
    Negative mutations = less likely to be passed on.
    Extremely negative mutations = will never be passed on.

    Any vital code that becomes “nonsense” will be eliminated from the genepool and won’t get passed on. Any mutation that inhibits the organism will be less successful. Any mutation that aids the organism will be successful. In information theory, you have specified information that can only degrade from perfection. You don’t have that in nature, there is no single code for humanity. Now a lot of the code does specified functions, so if any of that code is detrimental then the organism won’t survive to passed on. Our code will never descend into nonsense because if any of the vital coding sequences break, the line stops there and others who don’t have that coding sequence error keep on.

  308. #309 Bronze Dog
    November 13, 2008

    If you begin to randomly modify information (such as DNA) you eventually have nonsense. Evolution argues that random modification of information creates more information rather than turning it into nonsense.

    I thought it was Shannon Theory of Information that said that.

    Of course, I doubt that’s the kind of information you’re talking about: The longer description you need to use to produce the string means it has more information, or something like that.

    Of course, the “nonsense” thing is nonsense: DNA isn’t a message that gets garbled. It’s roughly analogous to building instructions that can be improved by changing them. Unless you’re going to argue that DNA started out perfect, or that all changes are detrimental, I don’t see much point to your line of argument.

  309. #310 Owlmirror
    November 13, 2008

    Evolution argues that random modification of information creates more information rather than turning it into nonsense.

    Precisely because of selection. Those modifications that lead to “nonsense” (which is to say, an absolutely fatal flaw in development) are not viable. They die. They do not develop; they do not reproduce. They shuffle off the mortal coil; they push up the daisies; they join the genome invisible. They are EX-genes.

    Dammit, this is still all in the FAQ.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF005.html

  310. #311 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    DNA isn’t a message that gets garbled.

    Yes it is. That’s why we will all die. See Genetics of Aging

  311. #312 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    Yes it is. That’s why we will all die. See Genetics of Aging

    Ageing != reproduction. Evolution is to do with reproduction.

  312. #313 Owlmirror
    November 13, 2008
    DNA isn’t a message that gets garbled.

    Yes it is. That’s why we will all die. See Genetics of Aging

    Do you actually have any understanding at all of the differences between meiosis and mitosis?

  313. #314 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    Owlmirror,

    From this point on you can assume that I am educated and that I have read a couple of books on genetics and that I have also read much talkorigins.org.

  314. #315 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    Kel,

    As you pointed out, I ignored natural selection in my last comment. So would you agree that we are arguing about whether or not natural selection is able to overcome entropy?

  315. #316 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    Randy, you have said directly to me that Talkorigins isn’t credible. You ignored my question on Your post that merely asked “why?” Then come over here to resume this attack on sanity. The genetic degeneration an individual faces has little to do with evolution. Evolution has to do with populations and species, not individuals

  316. #317 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    let me clarify, oh wait i don’t have to:
    Posted by: Kel | November 13, 2008 12:31 AM

    If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn’t much of a connection. Think instead of how entropy applies to information. If you begin to randomly modify information (such as DNA) you eventually have nonsense.
    No it doesn’t, and I’m really surprised that you can think it would. I’ve asked for clarification several times in the Texas Petition thread about the matter because after pondering the question I couldn’t see how you would come to that conclusion.

    In nature:
    Good mutations = more likely to be passed on.
    Neutral mutations = no more or less chance to be passed on.
    Negative mutations = less likely to be passed on.
    Extremely negative mutations = will never be passed on.

    Any vital code that becomes “nonsense” will be eliminated from the genepool and won’t get passed on. Any mutation that inhibits the organism will be less successful. Any mutation that aids the organism will be successful. In information theory, you have specified information that can only degrade from perfection. You don’t have that in nature, there is no single code for humanity. Now a lot of the code does specified functions, so if any of that code is detrimental then the organism won’t survive to passed on. Our code will never descend into nonsense because if any of the vital coding sequences break, the line stops there and others who don’t have that coding sequence error keep on.

    Bother reading it this time

  317. #318 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    Let me illustrate how devastating modification is to information. Consider the following sentence.

    “Kel is a computer programer.”

    There are a vast number of single character modifications that could be made to this sentence. I let you do the math to compute the number of modifications possible by changing a single character, adding a single character, or deleting a single character. I think there is only one modification that will improve the information. I misspelled “programmer”; so the information can be improved by inserting an “m” at the right place.

    So I think you are fooling yourself when you say that most mutations are neutral.

  318. #319 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    Rickr0ll,

    Correct me if I am wrong … Isn’t talkorigins.org written by activist atheists? If you are going to reference talkorigins.org its a little like being a republican quoting Karl Rove.

  319. #320 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    Randy, don’t be foolish. genes are instructions, noy declarative sentances,quit being so dense about it. besides, your definition of imptovement has no beasring on whether or not it is an actual improvement. you are making all sorts of linguistic and grammatical rules to fit that statement in, while a larger amout of changes might result in A. a better sentance (i.e. more complexity and literature value) B. the sentance in a different langueage, or C. something completely different and valid. After all as a writer, people weed out words that they feel to be not descriptive enough, or are misspelled, or add whoole other peices of vocabulary. Restricting your example to a single sentance is completely intellectuall disengenuous, as opposed to the tomes of information stored in DNA

  320. #321 truth machine, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Consider the following sentence.

    “Kel is a computer programer.”

    Consider instead

    “$%%^%&*&*^(*(*((Kel%^&%^*&**((&()()()is&^%*&^*&*&*&*&*&^*&(a^%&^%*&(*(*(*(computer^&^%&^&*&*&(*(*(*)()((*)programer*^&((*&)(_)(*^)(*_))^(“.

    Most mutations will be neutral.

  321. #322 truth machine, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Correct me if I am wrong … Isn’t talkorigins.org written by activist atheists? If you are going to reference talkorigins.org its a little like being a republican quoting Karl Rove.

    Ridiculous ad hominem; talkorigins.org offers arguments, which stand on their own merit regardless of who wrote them. And “activist atheists” is not a synonym for “evolutionary biologists”.

    But by your logic … isn’t anything you write written by idiot? If you’re going to offer up your views, isn’t that a little like you quoting zippy the pinhead?

  322. #323 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    holy shit, Randy, you just parroted Stephen Colbert rith there. ROFL: “reality has leftist tendancies.” Wow, just wow. argument from authority, means nothing in respect to this argument

  323. #324 truth machine, OM
    November 13, 2008

    From this point on you can assume that I am educated and that I have read a couple of books on genetics and that I have also read much talkorigins.org.

    But we don’t need to assume that you’re an idiot who isn’t capable of understanding what you read … that is evident.

  324. #325 truth machine, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Stephen Colbert

    Rob Corddry: “it’s become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda”.

  325. #326 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    actually there was another one that was even better in response to me on another post (but which one, DAMN this site is too busy lol!) tm

  326. #327 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    As you pointed out, I ignored natural selection in my last comment. So would you agree that we are arguing about whether or not natural selection is able to overcome entropy?

    There’s nothing to overcome! That’s the problem Randy, DNA is not specified information in the way that information theory dictates. There’s no one perfect being that as it gets replicated over and over it slowly degrades like Shannon Entropy does. Indeed, it would be a huge problem for evolution if there was such little genetic variation as there would be from a single source.

    Consider the Cheetah, about 10000 years ago the population size dropped to as little as 7. Now every cheetah in the world has so little genetic variation it’s like they are all siblings. Skin grafts taken from one can work on cheetahs all around the world. They have the same problems that are associated with inbreeding.

    Did you ever watch the NOVA series Evolution? Fascinating show, highly recommended. Anyway in there they had an episode on why sex. Because by using sex we are only passing on 50% of our own DNA. Wouldn’t it be better to pass on all our own DNA? Well no. They took two different populations of fish in South America I believe. One reproduced asexually the other had sexual reproduction. What they found was the asexual fish had problems with bacteria that the sexual fish did not.
    Then came a drought and a small population of the fish were isolated. What they found was because there was so little genetic variation in the sexual fish because of the low population, they were now the ones affected with bacteria. It was like they were inbred! Then they took some other fish from a lower pond and put them into the genepool and the problem went away.

    What all this means is that genetic change is not only a useful function of evolution, it’s a vital function! We need to keep mutating because we are always in an arms race for survival. For us it’s the microscopic world. For the Zebra, it’s against the cheetah. For the Peacock, it’s against the Peahen. We need genetic variation in order to survive, we need mutations because other organisms are mutating too. Why do you think Smallpox ravaged South America but the Conquistadors were unaffected? Because their ancestors had developed a resistance to it and they became carriers for a germ that wiped out an empire.

    Shannon Entropy doesn’t apply to evolution because change is a part of the process. The phrase “Mathematics is the language of science” is specified information that can only come about through intelligence, DNA however is not specified like that.

    When you have the code
    AUG UCU AAC GGU AAC UAA
    How is that any different from
    AUG UCG AAU GGG AAU UAA
    ?

  327. #328 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    “Kel is a computer programer.”

    Ahh, the monkey at the typewriter argument, I really should get back to finishing my post about how this doesn’t apply to DNA.

  328. #329 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    So I think you are fooling yourself when you say that most mutations are neutral.

    You have hundreds of mutations in your code from your parents and the overwhelming majority do not affect your survival or reproduction strategies one bit. It’s only on the odd occasion do we hear of mutations that manifest on the macroscopic level and most of them are harmful but there are a few that are useful. The harmful ones get destroyed by natural selection while the advantageous ones get passed on.

    If it doesn’t impede on your ability to have fertile offspring, how is it harmful?

  329. #330 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    Blue iris coleration is a mutagenic trait! it has been traced back to one man in history. that alone dismisses your entire premise Randy!

  330. #331 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    What DNA really tells us…

    On common ancestry with Chimpanzees
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs

  331. #332 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008
  332. #333 Owlmirror
    November 13, 2008

    Isn’t talkorigins.org written by activist atheists?

    #include *facepalm*
    #include *weary sigh*

    And that, too, is in the FAQ.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601_1.html

    Which is why assuming that you have read anything, or more importantly, understand anything that you have read, is a very very bad idea.

  333. #334 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    If he’s meant to understand how evolution works by reading Talk.Origins, then why is he making the same terrible argument about information theory?

  334. #335 Owlmirror
    November 13, 2008

    More to the point, evolutionary biology is not done by “activist atheists”, it’s done by evolutionary biologists.

    And only someone utterly and profoundly ignorant, or a disingenuous lying moron, would assert otherwise.

    See also:

    http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/religion

    And:

    http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

  335. #336 abb3w
    November 13, 2008

    Randy Stimpson: If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn’t much of a connection.

    Wrong. AGAIN, see paper: “Natural selection for least action”, by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). When the second law of thermodynamics is expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.

  336. #337 phantomreader42
    November 13, 2008

    Currious @ #301:

    I say: Okay, I have double checked with certain sources. I think it is you who is misinformed and uneducated on the subject. Yes, there are as you say deletions, duplications and rearrangements, but there are no “additions”. These are just tandem repeats of the same existing information… THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

    Once again, your “sources” are lying to you.

    One particularly interesting example of a beneficial, additive mutation occurring in a living creature (which your “sources” have told you is impossible) is of bacteria that gained the ability to metabolize nylon, opening up an entirely new food source. This change was the result of a point insertion mutation, the addition of a single base pair. This actually happened, the genes of both the original and mutant strains have been analyzed, it IS an addition. And no matter how many times your “sources” lie about it, it won’t change the facts.

    Though maybe you should consider why you keep getting such bad information from these “Sources” of yours. Do these “Sources” by any chance include convicted felon Kent Hovind or known piglet rapist Ken Ham? You can’t learn anything about evolution from creationists, they’re liars, and they go to great lengths to avoid learning anything on the subject, and to misinform at every opportunity.

    Currious again, not living up to the name:

    The word “mutation” is a scary undefined word.

    Only because you don’t bother to look up the definition or learn anything. Doesn’t sound like the way a “currious” person would act, avoiding new information like the plague. Though an irrational fear of the truth is normal for creationists…

  337. #338 currious
    November 13, 2008

    All of this is just crazy! One says one thing and someone says another… do any such scientific test really prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt? Can we really say for sure considering that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning? Furthermore, when we discuss such issues as to evolution, entropy, natural selection or mutation. These are all wide-ranging words encompassed by many different POINTS OF VIEW. Just because a well accredited, or notorious scientific person gives his/her heehaw on the matter does not mean it is by any means CORRECT!

    Whoever in this forum said it was an ATTACK ON SANITY, was correct!

    There are just to many fine lines and inconsistencies, as well as points of view that are building anger, and to which only serve to downplay the creators works.

    However, I would suggest that we caution just what “FACTS” we think are so, since if someone can get people to believe something that is not true, and that belief leads to those people taking actions to change the world (in terms of scientific views) in a manner that the claimant wishes, this could be more devastating to an “open” society than a nuclear bomb! Darwinism and evolutionism may be that very theory through which evil strives to take the “morality” away from humankind. For what hope have we left if evolutionary biology is correct. It would only serve to pull all our heavenly desires to a grinding hopeless halt.

    Yes, I am a CREATIONIST in the highest degree! All said and done, I will be leaving now.

  338. #339 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Yes, I am a CREATIONIST in the highest degree!

    Well Duh!. We figured that out a while back.

  339. Kel,

    I was hoping you would notice the difference between my argument and the monkey at the type writer argument. Its not the same.

    I’ve been reading your blog. It looks like we can continue the discussion over there at a slower pace. I’ve got too much work right now to be responding to everyone else. I’ll try to post a comment there today or tomorrow.

  340. #341 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Rickr0ll,

    Correct me if I am wrong … Isn’t talkorigins.org written by activist atheists? If you are going to reference talkorigins.org its a little like being a republican quoting Karl Rove.

    Only if you ignore the thousands of articles cited and referenced.

  341. #342 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    Darwinism and evolutionism may be that very theory through which evil strives to take the “morality” away from humankind. For what hope have we left if evolutionary biology is correct. It would only serve to pull all our heavenly desires to a grinding hopeless halt.

    *yawn*
    Only if all your “heavenly desires” require myths to be “true” and empirical observation to be “wrong.”

  342. #343 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    Some last comments before I move on…

    #342 said: *yawn* Only if all your “heavenly desires” require myths to be “true” and empirical observation to be “wrong.”

    Well than, you might as well kiss your “life-after-death” goodby. Oh and BTW, what was your point in making “points” in all your posts here, to what means and purpose did they serve if it is all for naught (no life-after-death)?

    You might also be alarmed to find out that all of your input here was based on “FAITH” (the substance of things not seen, but believed).

    Either way, there is no escaping G-d!

  343. #344 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Either way, there is no escaping G-d!

    Very easy to do. He/she/it doesn’t exist.

  344. #345 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    You might also be alarmed to find out that all of your input here was based on “FAITH” (the substance of things not seen, but believed).

    I second his yawn.

  345. #346 abb3w
    November 13, 2008

    currious: do any such scientific test really prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?

    In the sense that you might wish to prove that you have a brain inside your skull instead of a piece of cauliflower? Yes.

    currious: Can we really say for sure considering that what we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning?

    To the degree you can really say for sure that you have a brain inside your skull instead of a piece of cauliflower? Yes… though technically, these are inferences from observed evidence, not themselves observed evidence.

    currious: Just because a well accredited, or notorious scientific person gives his/her heehaw on the matter does not mean it is by any means CORRECT!

    No. However, to determine whether or not it is “correct”, you must use the methodology of Science.

    currious: There are just to many fine lines and inconsistencies, as well as points of view that are building anger, and to which only serve to downplay the creators works.

    Presumes there is a creator, and that any alternatives are “better” than evolution in terms of “fine lines and inconsistencies”.

    currious: However, I would suggest that we caution just what “FACTS” we think are so, since if someone can get people to believe something that is not true, and that belief leads to those people taking actions to change the world (in terms of scientific views) in a manner that the claimant wishes, this could be more devastating to an “open” society than a nuclear bomb!

    Indeed… which is exactly PZ and others oppose religions, whose claimants appear to be behaving in a manner exactly as you describe.

    currious: Darwinism and evolutionism may be that very theory through which evil strives to take the “morality” away from humankind.

    Presumes… a heck of a lot. Mainly, that “evil strives”, and that a better understanding of evolution won’t lead to an improvement of humanity’s morality.

    currious: For what hope have we left if evolutionary biology is correct.

    First, Science may contradict Faith, and precludes Belief, but cannot preclude Hope. Second, we may have Hope and even Belief that while we may not exist forever, something very much like us may continue to exist after we are gone… and perhaps, be better than we ourselves are.

    currious: It would only serve to pull all our heavenly desires to a grinding hopeless halt.

    Presumes any of our desires are “heavenly”, and that mundane desires for the future are not worth considering.

  346. #347 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    Yawning signifies loss of oxygen to the brain.

    I can hear the desperate jauntiness of an orchestra fiddling away for dear life on a sinking ship.

  347. #348 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Yes the giant vacuum that is your ignorance is sucking it all out of the room.

  348. #349 abb3w
    November 13, 2008

    Currious: You might also be alarmed to find out that all of your input here was based on “FAITH” (the substance of things not seen, but believed).

    That’s a sloppy definition of faith. For myself, I reserve the term “Faith” for the primary tenets that must be believed without possibility of proof, as opposed to propositions proven as inferences under some rule (which itself is a proposition). I refer to the latter as “Inference”; “Belief” includes both.

    The input here is inference, based on the primary propositions of Faith that Logic (EG: Wolfram’s Axiom) is valid for philosophical inference, that jointwise affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms is self-consistent, and that Reality is at all relateable to Experience.

  349. #350 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Currious, you said you were leaving two posts ago. Just another Liar for JebusTM. And yyyyaaaawwwwwnnnn.

  350. #351 Sven DIMilo
    November 13, 2008

    if it is all for naught (no life-after-death)

    If all of your endeavor in this life is pointed toward another one after death, then it is you who is wasting time. I’d say you’re going to be disappointed, except you won’t be. Being, y’know, dead and all.

    And what in the world does the veracity of biological evolution have to do with your hope of life after death, anyway?

  351. #352 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    I am leaving as I finish with some closing points. I realize that I had not responded properly to #301

    #301 phantomreader42 said: Once again, your “sources” are lying to you. One particularly interesting example of a beneficial, additive mutation occurring in a living creature (which your “sources” have told you is impossible) is of bacteria that gained the ability to metabolize nylon, opening up an entirely new food source. This change was the result of a point insertion mutation, the addition of a single base pair. This actually happened, the genes of both the original and mutant strains have been analyzed, it IS an addition. And no matter how many times your “sources” lie about it, it won’t change the facts.

    I say: This is still working with “existing information” is it not? Bacteria becoming immune or even an immunity to the AIDS virus is still not “IN MY POINT OF VIEW” anything truly new.

    Point of view my friend, POINT OF VIEW! However, you still choose to argue the point.

    #348: What could be sloppier about faith? Faith is faith… hope and belief in the things not seen.

    Faith is belief or trust in something (including devotion) to something without any logical substantial proof.
    It is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not yet seen.

    The whole premise of evolutionism is subject to this very bases since we cannot find the transitional fossils that led one species to the next. We surmise all this and tell ourselves that indeed this very evidence is fleeting right before our eyes especially when we can see the resemblance between monkeys and man. BUT WHERE IS THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE MY FRIEND? And if you really think they are there, than you need to take a closer look again. THEY ARE NOT! Again, this is a good example of the fine line drawn between POINTS OF VIEW.

    Therefore, (without tangible evidence) and while not even realizing it, evolutionism is a RELIGION unto itself which is based off of FAITH (things hoped for, not seen, but believed).

  352. #353 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    God doesn’t exist, which makes religion and faith irrelevant. You won’t get the last word, so quit trying.

  353. #354 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    #350: Its about “morality”.

    Without morality, it can destroy the whole human society. Its not just merely about life-after-death it can also spell the havoc for society. There would be crimes, killings, lying cheating, steeling… ext…

    Can you imagine what it would be like without morality or moral laws?

  354. #355 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    Therefore, (without tangible evidence) and while not even realizing it, evolutionism is a RELIGION unto itself which is based off of FAITH

    Wrong, wrong, aaaaand…wrong.
    You don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Your POINT OF VIEW is based in ignorance. You’re making a fool of yourself.

  355. #356 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Morality can be had without god or theology. To say otherwise is a huge lie. God doesn’t exist, so man defines what is moral and what is not.

  356. #357 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    Nerd of Redhead said: God doesn’t exist, which makes religion and faith irrelevant. You won’t get the last word, so quit trying.

    I say: You wouldn’t have said that if you were one of the 6 million years who witnessed G-d’s thunderous speaking firsthand at Mount Sinai. THIS IS AN ENTIRE NATION. It is called a NATIONAL REVELATION! And it is documented in the Torah as an eye-witness to this event.

  357. #358 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    So…if biological evolution has in fact occurred (and contrary to your silly statements, all available empirical evidence is clear that it has), then there can be no morality?
    You’re nuts.

  358. #359 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    The whole premise of evolutionism is subject to this very bases since we cannot find the transitional fossils that led one species to the next. We surmise all this and tell ourselves that indeed this very evidence is fleeting right before our eyes especially when we can see the resemblance between monkeys and man. BUT WHERE IS THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE MY FRIEND? And if you really think they are there, than you need to take a closer look again. THEY ARE NOT!

    You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

    No transitional fossils? Seriously, that is one of the dumbest most ridiculous things that can be said.

  359. #360 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    #355 Nerd of Redhead:

    Do you have any idea where the morals of our society originally came from?

    Try looking in your Bible for once (starting with the 10 commandments).

  360. #361 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    I say: You wouldn’t have said that if you were one of the 6 million years who witnessed G-d’s thunderous speaking firsthand at Mount Sinai. THIS IS AN ENTIRE NATION. It is called a NATIONAL REVELATION! And it is documented in the Torah as an eye-witness to this event.

    Ok I’m tempted to call Poe. What are you smoking?

    6 Million years witnessed god speaking?

    Huh?

    What the hell are you even talking about.

  361. #362 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Currious, you are getting more incoherant as time goes on. The earth is 4 billion years old, give or take. Life evolved here on earth with needing divine interference. You god is imaginary. People define what is moral and not, and have been doing it as long a humans have been around.

  362. #363 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Do you have any idea where the morals of our society originally came from?

    Try looking in your Bible for once (starting with the 10 commandments).

    Are you suggesting that the idea of not killing or stealing started with the 10 commandments?

  363. #364 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    #360 I meant 6 million people (the entire Jewish nation).

  364. #365 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Currious, guess who wrote the bible. Humans. No god involved since god doesn’t exist.

  365. #366 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    6 Million people? Where are you getting those numbers?

  366. #367 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    6 million people heard God speak 4000 years ago. We know this because an eyewitness wrote it in a book.
    Can you spot the flaw in this logic?

  367. #368 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    No no , I want to know where she is getting the 6 million number from.

  368. #369 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    Wow.
    You gents have a cute one here.

  369. #370 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    I want to know where she is getting the 6 million number from.

    I know. A separate good question.

  370. #371 CJO
    November 13, 2008

    You wouldn’t have said that if you were one of the 6 million years who witnessed G-d’s thunderous speaking firsthand at Mount Sinai. THIS IS AN ENTIRE NATION. It is called a NATIONAL REVELATION! And it is documented in the Torah as an eye-witness to this event.

    Bwahahahaha!

    6 million whoozits? Moses was the only one who heard the Big Guy, everybody else was gettin’ busy with the golden calf, and looking nervously up at the storm cloud, right? You do realize that the people of Judea were polytheists at this time, and that there is no such thing as the Torah until Ezra came out of Babylon, in the 5th Century BCE? Do you believe every piece of fiction written from an ostensible point of view is actually the account of an eye-witness? If not, why do you give the anthologized myths and legends of Judean bandits and goat-herders privileged status?

  371. #372 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    Well its obvious that birds of a feather flock together. I fully expected this on a bias forum such as this.

    However, I had enormous fun riling up the darkened souls! :)

    Moving onto the next bias forum…

  372. #373 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    The very definition of a troll. You suck. Don’t let the door bruise yer ass on the way out of this bias forum. Second thought, go ahead and get bruised and splintered.

  373. #374 CJO
    November 13, 2008

    I meant 6 million people (the entire Jewish nation).

    With Moses on the Exodus? Wandering in the desert. Six. Million. People. Holy shit, you are cracked.

    Look into the archaeology of the region. There is no evidence of ANY habitation in the time-frame required by Exodus at ANY of the sites mentioned by name. 6 million people simply cannot camp out in a freakin’ desert without leaving a pretty serious pile of trash. (And of course that number is entirely fabricated anyway. No credible estimate of the population of Iron Age Judea comes anywhere near even that order of magnitude.)

  374. #375 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Currious, you come to a forum where evolution and atheism are the main thrusts. What else did you expect?

  375. #376 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    With Moses on the Exodus? Wandering in the desert. Six. Million. People.

    That’sa lotta manna!

  376. #377 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Well its obvious that birds of a feather flock together. I fully expected this on a bias forum such as this.

    However, I had enormous fun riling up the darkened souls! :)

    Moving onto the next bias forum…

    Translation: I lost the argument and the questions started getting too hard to I’m going to run away with my tail between my legs.

    Way to represent your side currious.

    typical

  377. #378 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    to = so

  378. #379 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    The number in Exodus was congregation (?). They heard thundering and backed away from the mountain.
    Six million is an interesting number.

  379. #380 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Yep. I’m interested where he/she gets that number.

  380. #381 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    I just went and looked it up Rev. as usual the christian is confused.
    Six million jews is the holocaust, not Exodus.

    Duh, I can’t believe I forgot that.

  381. #382 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Yeah but I’m pretty sure he/she’s not confusing that. She/he has had that number fed to her.

    I want to know where from.

    i could be wrong.

  382. #383 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    Not from here. “Only” about 2.5 million. *snicker*

  383. #384 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    The part that threw me was citing the Torah, which I know next to nothing about.

    Good question though, which sect is feeding their congregations that crap? Don’t know.

  384. #385 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Can you just imagine trying to move even 20,000 people through the Sinai desert with its limited resources? A million just boogles the imagination.

    And here Rickroll was worried that I killed the thread about 100 posts ago.

  385. #386 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    Ah ha. Thanks for that Sven. I was looking in Chapter 16 of Exodus, because of the Mt. Sinai remark.

  386. #387 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    Wow Currious turned out to be a complete moron. Here I was thinking he would have learned something. And now Randy is going to infect my blog by posting comments there? Shit. This thread hasn’t turned out well for me.

    The whole premise of evolutionism is subject to this very bases since we cannot find the transitional fossils that led one species to the next.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

    It’s actually a joke in my household, some guy who said to me there are no transitional fossils. So every time we are watching a science documentary one of us says “there are no transitional fossils” in a sarcastic manner. It’s sad that this creationist doesn’t look at the evidence. Watch the two videos I posted.

  387. #388 Currious
    November 13, 2008

    I guess I’m still lingering around to see the fruit of my mission.

    Now that is what I like to see! You guys scrambling to check Biblical scripture (I bet it just kills you to do so).

    Perhaps learning something arent you?

    You are correct Patricia! It was not 6 millions Jews at Mt. Sinai, (I thought I would test your ineptness) rather it has been estimated somewhere around 3 million. Though nobody really knows for sure since the Torah does not completely specify a complete number of Jews, rather it only tells us that it was an ENTIRE PEOPLE that heard G-d speak at Mount Sinai, experiencing national revelation. G-d did not just appear to Moses in a private rendezvous, but to an entire nation of people. This claim is mentioned many times in the Torah.

    [Moses told the Israelite’s]: Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld. Do not remove this memory from your heart all the days of your life. Teach your children and your children’s children about the day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horev [Mount Sinai]…

    G-d spoke to you from the midst of the fire, you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant, instructing you to keep the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.’ (Deut.4:9-13)

    You have been shown in order to know that G-d, He is the Supreme Being. There is none besides Him. From heaven he let you hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words amid the fire. (Deut. 4:32-36)

    Moses called all of Israel and said to them: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and the ordinances that I speak in your ears today – learn them, and be careful to perform them. The Lord your G-d sealed a covenant with us at Horev [Mount Sinai]. Not with our forefathers did God seal this covenant, but with us – we who are here, all of us alive today. Face to face did G-d speak with you on the mountain from amid the fire. (Deut. 5:1-4)

    I love scripture! :)

  388. #389 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    Point of view my friend, POINT OF VIEW! However, you still choose to argue the point.

    Creationism and evolution are not points of view, one is a fairy tale, the other is based on empirical science. Mutation has been observed, natural selection has been observed, speciation has been observed. New features have been observed. Evolution is science, creationism is what retards cling to because they either don’t know better or don’t want to know better.

    I was hoping you would notice the difference between my argument and the monkey at the type writer argument. Its not the same.

    Yeah, your argument is the opposite of the monkey at a typewriter. Instead of getting to that information over time, it’s about that information being lost. But it seems you can’t grasp my argument that DNA isn’t specified information like language is so what you say can’t apply.

  389. #390 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Currious, thank you for the supplying source of the numbers. However, your imaginary god doesn’t exist, your bible was written from oral history many years after the events, and it was written by humans. So we are less than impressed when you try to quote the document as being a reliable source.

  390. #391 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    I guess I’m still lingering around to see the fruit of my mission

    Yes, we’ve all realised that you are a scientifically retarded. Congratulations. Can you go away now? It’s a shame to watch someone who has a brain let it go to waste.

  391. #392 Sven DiMilo
    November 13, 2008

    I thought I would test your ineptness

    back to Irony Meters R Us, I guess.

  392. #393 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    You are correct Patricia! It was not 6 millions Jews at Mt. Sinai, (I thought I would test your ineptness)

    LIAR

    You had to check yourself once I called you on it and then played the classic internet ploy of NOOOOO i was just testing you.

    You are a liar

  393. #394 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    There were 3 million Jews wandering in the desert for 40 years? So why if there was a population that large is there not a shred of archaeological evidence to support the exodus? Why is there not a shred of archaeological evidence to support that they were once Egyptian slaves? Why is there not archaeological evidence to support the 10 plagues? And why the fuck would anyone worship a deity that ensured that the plagues would end in infanticide? This is supposed to be a loving God?

  394. #395 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Currious, quoting scripture in not proof of anything other than your ability to regurgitate what your pastor has told you or what you read.

    That’s it.

    What version of the bible should we trust?

  395. #396 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    I want to know why almost none of the bible matches to the archaeological evidence we find.

  396. #397 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    I want to know why almost none of the bible matches to the archaeological evidence we find.
    I guess believers think of archaeology the same as they find natural science. If it don’t match, it’s because of the incompetence of science. And what is evidence anyway? The bible is evidence and that’s all that matters.

  397. #398 CJO
    November 13, 2008

    You guys scrambling to check Biblical scripture (I bet it just kills you to do so).
    Perhaps learning something arent you?

    Smug little prick. There are regular posters on this site whose knowledge of scripture puts your feeble cut and paste exercise to shame. That’s knowledge of scripture: its history and interpretation. You know, intellectually honest scholarship, as opposed to the credulous recitation that only passes for knowledge among the ignorant, the deluded, and the liars.

  398. #399 CJO
    November 13, 2008

    I want to know why almost none of the bible matches to the archaeological evidence we find.

    I always imagine YHWH with a little whisk broom and a dustpan traipsing around Sinai behind Moses and his Merry Band of Men.

  399. #400 abb3w
    November 13, 2008

    Currious: What could be sloppier about faith? Faith is faith… hope and belief in the things not seen. Faith is belief or trust in something (including devotion) to something without any logical substantial proof.

    I suspect equivocation on the nature of “proof”. The word is from the Latin “probare”, meaning to test. In science, hypotheses are proven by testing against each other for “best” describing the current set of evidence.

    Currious: The whole premise of evolutionism is subject to this very bases since we cannot find the transitional fossils that led one species to the next.

    Presumes that the “transitional” fossils you think are needed are required for proof. This is incorrect; formally, proof only requires correctness on the current set of evidence. This does mean that what the “proven theory” is may evolve, based on (a) new evidence, shifting the balance, or (b) a new hypothesis previously unconsidered. This potentially allows for the supplanting of evolution or the discovery that your brain really is a piece of cauliflower; however, neither alternative is “valid” until suggested and supported as “best”.

    Currious: BUT WHERE IS THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE MY FRIEND?

    You added an “R” there. Chromosome 2 is the most piece of evidence closest to “smoking gun”. However, every piece of evidence from biology is relateable to other pieces via the theory of evolution… so, “in every known living thing” seems the answer to your question.

    Currious: Again, this is a good example of the fine line drawn between POINTS OF VIEW.

    No, this is an example of your failure to understand the principle of Minimum Message Length Induction as a basis of competitive testing, and that it is formally proven correct (in the mathematical sense) under the primary premises that Logic (EG: Wolfram’s Axiom) is valid for philosophical inference, that jointwise affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms is self-consistent, and that Reality is at all relateable to Experience. Such testing is a form of proof, which distinguishes the propositions so tested as Inference and not as Faith.

    What you seem to be referring to as a “point of view” appears analogous to a hypothesis, where a conjecture is used to describe how elements within a data set are interrelated. Such hypotheses can be tested for probability of correctness, via MMLI. Science does such testing; evolution holds the title belt as Theory, creationism doesn’t. Evolution is not based on Faith, but on Inference.

    Currious: Therefore, (without tangible evidence) and while not even realizing it, evolutionism is a RELIGION unto itself which is based off of FAITH (things hoped for, not seen, but believed).

    First, the only points of Faith involved are those I’ve listed:
    1) Logic (formally, either the Boolean, Robbins, or Wolfram axiom expression) is valid for inference
    2) Joint affirmation of ZF is self-consistent
    3) Reality is relateable to Experience (evidence).
    All other points at hand are not Faith, but Inference by means of such Faith from evidence.

    Second, disputing these points of Faith is not challenging evolution alone, but challenging all of science.

    Third, while science may be on its way to becoming a religion, it isn’t one yet. While the exact demarcation is disputed, the usual criteria in religious studies are having moral teachings, sacred scriptures, and holy rituals. Star Trek has these; it is a religion. Science at present lacks these; it is not.

  400. #401 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    And once again you are wrong. The entire congregation did not hear gawd speak.

    They were forbidden to touch Mt Sinai under punishment of death. They heard thundering and moved back from the mountain. I’m not going to give you the book and verses on it, since I’m sure you must already know. Liar.

    You are bearing false witness against gawd, a holy prophet, and the children of Israel. Have fun in hell.

  401. #402 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    His argument in a nutshell
    1. Ignore evidence
    2. Conclude there is no evidence
    3. Since faith is believing without evidence, evolution must be a religion
    4. Therefore my point of view is jsut as valid as there
    5. I have God on my side
    Therefore: Creationism happened

  402. #403 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    Curious, you dumbass!!! when i said that “this is an attack on sanity”, i was referring to nutjobs like you!
    BTW, who the hell cares about what was written in some book written by Moses thousands of years ago. When moses wrote all this stuff down supposedly, thjis was 500 years before the nation of Isreal was a literate one. think about that! And what the hell does this have to do with entropy?!

    If you want to talk about God then talk about why Jesus is a liar! it is mentioned in the book of John, chapter 10 i believe. and Yehweh isn’t a proper name, it means “mind your own damn busines.” “I am as i am” what a crock! And you wanna know what else? his Real name is El, the God of the canaanites at the time of Abraham.

  403. #404 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 13, 2008

    Curious, you dumbass!!!

    Something I’m betting he’s heard a lot in his life.

  404. #405 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    there was a show on the history channel called “Decoding Exodu” and it explains a great deal of what you call attention to Kel. They were slaves, but not anywhere near the time of Ramses II. that esitmate is off by like 1,500 years. and 40 isn’t a real number, it is symbolic, like the 40 days of Jesus in the wilderness, the 40 days of rain in Genesis, ect. alot of numbers in the Bible are like that.

  405. #406 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    By the way, can we get back to the issue at hand? entropy has nothing to do with biblical literalism, as newton said, he saw thaty Nature was a book of god’s revelationa as well, of the same caliber as the Bible. He was wrong, but only because he lived in the wrong place and time. his point about taking the natural laws seriously is something that needs to be hammered into the heads of all these xians(i love that term, it’s so derisive!) and ID wackos

  406. #407 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    there was a show on the history channel called “Decoding Exodu” and it explains a great deal of what you call attention to Kel.

    I have no idea what this sentence is talking about.

  407. #408 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    Patricia, wow! Nice fangs! hahaha. I couldn’t agree with you more. and might i add that you are very attractive as well lol? Sometimes it’s worth letting idiots have a say simply to watch them get beaten with the stupid stick (not the ugly stick, but similar)

  408. #409 CJO
    November 13, 2008

    They were slaves, but not anywhere near the time of Ramses II.

    The Judeans were never slaves in Egypt. There may be elements in Exodus drawn legendary tales of the expulsion of the Hyskos from Egypt.

    Essentially nothing in the Hebrew Bible is history (as opposed to orally transmitted myth and legend) until you get to the Deuteronomic History, and even then, it’s political propaganda using the names and exaggerated deeds of dimly remembered near-legendary figures like David and Solomon.

  409. #410 CJO
    November 13, 2008

    #408
    “drawn legendary” should be “drawn from legendary”

  410. #411 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    If Randy comes and taints my blog with his asininity, I’ll echo the posts here for you all to rip apart.

  411. #412 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Kel, keep telling Randy he is so brilliant that he shouldhas share his findings with us scientists by publishing in a respectable peer reviewed journal. Since he knows he is full of shit, this will drive him crazy.

  412. #413 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    True, I’ll even point him in the direction of the Tempeton Foundation. Why if he has a great idea that can bring down evolution is he arguing with a Computer Science graduate? Shouldn’t he be writing into peer reviewed journals, contacting biology departments, and pushing his idea onto those that matter? I’m a nobody with no say on whether evolution is correct or not, I merely echo what I learn from actual biologists who have far more training and understanding of the processes than I do.

    But fuck, if I can see he is full of shit then he has no hope. His ideas are fundamentally wrong at the core, it’s both a pervasion to natural science and to information theory. As a computer science person thingy, I won’t stand for him misrepresenting the scope of information theory.

  413. #414 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Kel, Randy just wants to play rhetorical games. Then he can declare victory. By not playing those games you frustrate him. He will go away.

    And don’t sell yourself short. I raise my libation in salute to you, sir.

  414. #415 Rickr0ll
    November 13, 2008

    Kel, i was harrassing Randy at his own blog. i suggect you guys do the same. Unfortunately, he is “too busy” to talk to me there one on one, but he thinks he’ll make time for you on yours? what an idiot
    CJO, you didn’t look into it very far:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_origins_of_the_Hyksos
    it says that the hyksos were from canaan, so yes, the judeans

  415. #416 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    That should have been Templeton, something is really wrong with my brain today – I’m making typos all over the place. No idea why.

  416. #417 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    Rickroll, Why thank you! It is tough keeping my fangs so pearly white with all the christian biting I do.

  417. #418 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    And don’t sell yourself short. I raise my libation in salute to you, sir.

    Thanks.

    Kel, Randy just wants to play rhetorical games. Then he can declare victory. By not playing those games you frustrate him. He will go away.

    I’ll keep that in mind. Given it’s my blog, I would like my responses to seem somewhat dignified and informative, and for it not to descend into a exercise in poo-flinging. I really don’t want to get my hands dirty.

    Kel, i was harrassing Randy at his own blog. i suggect you guys do the same.

    Fuck it, it’s a waste of time. If he can’t grasp that any detrimental mutation would not be able to be passed on, then he has no hope.

  418. #419 Rey Fox
    November 13, 2008

    This thread is pretty much scorched earth by this point, but if Currrrrious is still around, then I have a question: why do you keep omitting the vowel from “God”? Does it have something to do with that prohibition of using the Lord’s name in vain? Do you know what “in vain” means (which I ask not only because you seem to be censoring his name indiscriminately, but I’m truly curious myself)? And finally, a god being that insists that you can’t say his name either at all or only in certain narrow circumstances: doesn’t that strike you as rather petty and immature behavior?

  419. #420 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    Kel,

    Looks like you have made another false assumption –detrimental mutations often are passed on. There are over 4000 known inherited genetic disorders.

  420. #421 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    Looks like you have made another false assumption –detrimental mutations often are passed on. There are over 4000 known inherited genetic disorders.

    And how many of those manifest before reproduction? Yes there are plenty of genetic disorders, it doesn’t mean they are ultimately detrimental to the species survival. Reproduction is the key event that matters. Evolution is not a race to perfection, it’s a survival of the genes. Genetic disorders that don’t impede survival simply don’t matter.

  421. #422 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Kel,
    Looks like you have made another false assumption –detrimental mutations often are passed on. There are over 4000 known inherited genetic disorders.

    More irrelevant lies from Randy. Randy, if you real data, publish it in refereed scientific journals. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

  422. #423 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    And how many of those manifest before reproduction?

    I am not sure what your point is.

  423. #424 John Morales
    November 13, 2008

    Randy Stimpson #419:

    There are over 4000 known inherited genetic disorders.

    Wait, aren’t you supposed to be arguing in favour of “intelligent design”?

  424. #425 Randy Stimpson
    November 13, 2008

    Nerd of Redhead,

    What was the lie?

  425. John,

    I write software for a living — thus my alias. Software is intelligently designed but it isn’t bug free.

  426. #427 John Morales
    November 13, 2008

    Randy, you’re saying the error-correction in the genome copying algorithm is even worse than existing human error-correction codes? Hm.

  427. Curious, you dumbass!!! when i said that “this is an attack on sanity”, i was referring to nutjobs like you!

    Rickr0ll,

    Are you trying to Molly Award or what?

  428. #429 MikeG
    November 13, 2008

    Randy, who is Award, and that does it mean “to Molly”?

    You other folks have quite a “winner” here. More entertaining and less scary than Eric A, but just as stupid.

  429. #430 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    Calling someone a nutjob and a dumbass is Molly worthy?

    er…I … can’t comprehend that.

  430. #431 Kel
    November 13, 2008
    And how many of those manifest before reproduction?

    I am not sure what your point is.

    That genetic disorders that affect people later in life aren’t detrimental to the survival of the species. Most people have children early on in life, before they are 35 or so. If a genetic disorder doesn’t hit until later in life, then there’s no problem of reproduction. If the person with a genetic disorder has successful offspring then what’s the problem?

  431. #432 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    I write software for a living — thus my alias. Software is intelligently designed but it isn’t bug free.

    Randy, what is the difference between software and DNA?

  432. #433 CJO
    November 13, 2008

    Rickroll,
    Yes, the Hyskos were a Semitic people, but “Judean” is a specific group of people. Clearly, going back to the early Bronze Age, we’re not going to find much clarity on who claimed to be from where originally, and the problem is compounded by the fact that such claims amounted to claims on the land and so were political. But no scholar, to my knowledge, avers that the people who came to be known as the tribes of Israel were the direct descendents of the Hyskos. So no, not Judean. Semitic.

  433. #434 John Morales
    November 13, 2008

    Patricia, MikeG: Randy is just evading an uncomfortable cognition and trying to distract.

    Randy, presumably you’re familiar with Shannon’s Theorem, and how close LDPC codes approach the limit.

  434. #435 Nerd of Redhead
    November 13, 2008

    Randy, if you don’t lie, you would be publishing in a peer reviewed scientific journal. And you know that. If you post something here, I presume it to be a lie until you back it up with a citation from the scientific literature. This is partially a science blog. In science, the burden of proof is always on those making the claims, in this case you. So cite your source from the scientific literature for your argument, or go away.

  435. #436 Patricia
    November 13, 2008

    Oh, thank you John.

    Well hell Randy why didn’t you just say so. See the thing to do is call me an ignorant slut, Janine a brazen hussy, and all the gents here assholes, and then threaten to leave the blog.

    Troll Tantrums are a real phenomenon, we expect them.

  436. #437 Kel
    November 13, 2008

    Randy, if you don’t lie, you would be publishing in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

    Yeah Randy, why aren’t you posting in a scientific journal? Why are you coming to the masses with your idea as opposed to fighting it out in academia? This is not peer review, and if you are using it as such take the hint that not a single person who understands evolution or information theory can see any merit in your idea.

  437. #438 Randy Stimpson
    November 14, 2008

    I just had dinner and a movie. I’m back.

  438. #439 Rickr0ll
    November 14, 2008

    well CJO, i default. i guess i’ll just have to take your word for it then. in addition to the relaease of canaanite slaves, Decoding Exodus also makes metnion more than once of greek hyksos. if that were to be incorrect, then i wouldn’t have to think that anything else that the program stated was factual either. I guess i just assumed that the History Channel would have got it right. Maybe not. I still find the historical analysis of Yehweh to be deeply compelling however, which was a separate program altogether.

    Wait, wait wait patricia, hold on…. You telling me that Randy THREATENED to leave the blog, and you stopped him?

    By the way, what is the Molly Award?

  439. Well hell Randy why didn’t you just say so. See the thing to do is call me an ignorant slut, Janine a brazen hussy, and all the gents here assholes, and then threaten to leave the blog.

    Patricia, clearly you don’t understand me. I’m not trying to win a Molly award. But you haven’t answered my question. What was the last thing I said that was a lie.

  440. #441 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    I just had dinner and a movie. I’m back.

    And we are all just tickled pink because of that.

  441. #442 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    By the way, what is the Molly Award?

    This is the Molly Award. I wants it precious. I, wants it!

  442. #443 Patricia
    November 14, 2008

    Clearly, I don’t understand you. That much is true.

    No Rickroll – I HOPE he threatens to leave the blog like most other trolls do.

    If what you say, Randy, is proven, a fact and not a lie, then why haven’t you submitted it to peer reviewed papers? If you can prove the existence of god, surely the world will bow to you, and we heathens will be proven wrong.

  443. #444 Patricia
    November 14, 2008

    We all wants it precious…snap, snap.
    Even us sluts have dreams.

    But you deserve it Kel.
    Oh, and maybe that brazen hussy too. *grin*

  444. #445 Randy Stimpson
    November 14, 2008

    If the person with a genetic disorder has successful offspring then what’s the problem?

    The point that I was making was that quite a few detrimental genetic disorders are inherited. You seem to be arguing that they are not.

    If one of you guys (like Kel) says something stupid I am wondering if PZ will step in with valid information.

  445. #446 melior
    November 14, 2008

    John Morales @ 423:

    Randy Stimpson #419:

    There are over 4000 known inherited genetic disorders.

    Wait, aren’t you supposed to be arguing in favour of “intelligent design”?

    God made those anencephalics in his own image.

  446. #447 Randy Stimpson
    November 14, 2008

    Patricia,

    I know I don’t understand you. You seem to hate religious people. Maybe you don’t but it sure seems like it? Why?

  447. #448 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    The point that I was making was that quite a few detrimental genetic disorders are inherited. You seem to be arguing that they are not.

    Of course they are inherited. We can see them being passed down the line. What I’m arguing is that if the genetic disorder was a problem for the species, then it would not make it through the reproductive cycle.

    “No doubt some of your cousins and great-uncles died in childhood, but not a single one of your ancestors did. Ancestors just don’t die young!” – Richard Dawkins

    If one of you guys (like Kel) says something stupid

    For someone who can’t grasp that information theory doesn’t prevent evolution, I wouldn’t be throwing the word stupid around. Why don’t you watch that first youtube video I posted and tell us how that could have come about without common ancestry?

  448. Randy, what is the difference between software and DNA?

    That’s the wrong question. What you should be asking is “what do they have in common?”

    A partial answer to that is that they are both forms of information. And information that is subject to random modification eventually turns to nonsense.

  449. #450 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    If one of you guys (like Kel) says something stupid I am wondering if PZ will step in with valid information.

    You’ve said nothing but stupid things, and PZ hasn’t stepped in. The difference between you and me Randy is I understand I’m not a biologist. That’s why all I do is echo what biologists and biochemists say, I don’t know better and I don’t pretend to.

    You on the other hand are trying to prove the scientists wrong and you are doing so by posting on this blog. The scientific process is open to anyone, but the peer review process is where it takes place. Posting on here is nothing but a game of mental manipulation, that even if you were right all you are doing is wasting your effort on people who have no say on the outcome. Submit your ideas for peer review, test them out in academia rather than in this faux-intellectual exchange.

  450. #451 John Morales
    November 14, 2008

    Melior, :)

    I see you’re back, Randy.

    Instead of being indignant at Patricia, you may wish to explain how the “intelligent designer(s)” used algorithms so inferior to the currently available ones.

    Unless, of course, all you have is bluster and misdirection.

  451. By the way, I think using the word “mutation” to describe changes to DNA isn’t the best choice. The very word seems to imply that all changes to DNA are negative. It might be preferable to talk about random modifications and non-randon modifications.

    Recombination is the most dramatic modification that we see in DNA and I would consider that non-random modification.

  452. #453 Rickr0ll
    November 14, 2008

    “God made those anencephalics in his own image.” HOLY SHIT, that’s sick and twisted!

    “A partial answer to that is that they are both forms of information.” Dammit Randy, EVERYTHING is a from of information. you don’t know anything about quantum mechanics either i suppose!

    “Rickr0ll. Are you trying to Molly Award or what?” Nope, i’m just a tenacious son of a bitch! By the way, isn’t there a picture of it? like so the winner can totally pimp their ID? so that it would show up to all your comments? that would be Sweeeeet.

  453. #454 John Morales
    November 14, 2008

    Randy, mutation means change, nothing more.

    You’re blustering again, and avoiding my question.

  454. #455 Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer
    November 14, 2008

    John. I wasn’t being indignant. I was asking a sincere question. I may get sassy at times forget to stick my tonque out like this :P so that you know I am kidding but I am never indignant. I really would like to know what is going throught Patricia’s head.

    Also, I am not a Christian so I don’t assume that God is all knowing and can create a perfect design. All things designed have flaws. My frickin pressure washer blew up today and reminded me of that. But even if some designed things didn’t have flaws they would still acquire flaws due to entropy.

  455. #456 John Morales
    November 14, 2008

    Rickr0ll, if you see an OM after the name of a poster here, it generally means, to use John Cleese’s expression, “somebody who’s so smart I’d be scared to open my mouth in his or her presence”. Not all winners care to use the honorific, however.

  456. you don’t know anything about quantum mechanics either i suppose!

    Well Rickr0ll, It’s been 29 years since I took a class in quantum mechanics. I’ve forgot almost everything. Maybe you should give me a lesson :P

  457. #458 John Morales
    November 14, 2008

    Randy,

    But even if some designed things didn’t have flaws they would still acquire flaws due to entropy

    Um. Earlier @307, you wrote “If you think of entropy only in terms of thermodynamics then there isn’t much of a connection. Think instead of how entropy applies to information”, but now you’re referring to thermodynamic entropy (i.e. the physical mechanism of duplication).
    Oddly enough, computer hardware is also subject to entropy, and it copies information, and we use error-correction to adjust for this.

    IOW, you’ve again evaded the question and blustered instead.

  458. #459 Rickr0ll
    November 14, 2008

    i have seen that. neat. i would rather change my name after winningl; Rickr0ll is just a meme i stole from morsec0de, the polite athiest lol (note the 0, which he wears on his head in most of his Youtube videos, cus he’s in OSU)
    sorry i’m not saying anything pertinent right now, but when Randy wants to take this seriously, i will

  459. In fact, I was taking Relativity and Quantum Mechanics at the University of Washington the year that PZ graduated from there. It must be a sign.

  460. #461 Rickr0ll
    November 14, 2008

    huh, the 0 doesn’t show up? bummer

  461. #462 RickrOll
    November 14, 2008

    well, it’s a zero people. i’m not an idiot, trust me. well, i guess since i haven’t noticed it, that doesn’t help me… why am i writing all of this?
    so Randy, gonna continue to ignore the whole article or what? If you want to charm us with your personality, you are generally speaking not supposed to let us on to the fact that you are a greasy weazel Before you try being nice.

  462. #463 RickrOll
    November 14, 2008

    Seth Lloyd and Rudy Rucker both are computer programmers, and they don’t see that there’s some “issue” with evolution. I have thier books to prove it. Programming the Universe, and The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul, respectively.

  463. #464 Randy Stimpson
    November 14, 2008

    Randy, you’re saying the error-correction in the genome copying algorithm is even worse than existing human error-correction codes? Hm.

    I wasn’t saying that. But that’s a good question. I read somewhere that there is something like 1 copy error per billion nucleotides copied. Or maybe it was 2 or 3. Something like that. I am not sure how reliably we can transmitt information these days. But DNA copying happens in a much harsher environment. It’s amazing how accurate it is.

  464. so Randy, gonna continue to ignore the whole article or what?

    Sorry Rickr0ll, I don’t know what article you are talking about and I am to lazy reread all these blog entries to find out.

  465. Actually Rickr0ll,

    I don’t know anything about you. Are you a college student or what?

  466. #467 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    A partial answer to that is that they are both forms of information. And information that is subject to random modification eventually turns to nonsense.

    The difference between DNA and code is that DNA is self-replicating. If the changes in DNA are good, then the organism survives and gives more offspring. If the changes ever are “nonsense”, then it won’t get passed on. If you wreck the code that makes our lungs, then you can damn well be sure that person won’t survive to reproduce. Nonsense won’t get passed on, it’s that simple. Any offspring that has code that means they will have severe heart defects will be weeded out by natural selection. You just can’t pass on nonsense, it’s that simple.

    How do you expect an offspring that has severe problems to reproduce?!?

  467. #468 Stanton
    November 14, 2008

    So, Mr Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer, what concrete evidence do you have to demonstrate that life is intelligently designed, and what laboratory experiments have you done to verify your claims? Furthermore, if the countless flaws and imperfections seen in living organisms and organelles were made due to accumulated errors on these designers’ part, to say nothing of the fact that many biochemical processes are structured exactly like extremely byzantine Rube Goldberg devices, why should we even consider them to be “intelligent” in the first place?

  468. #469 Rickr0ll
    November 14, 2008

    the article Randy, is the one that the post consists of. Duh. What really irks me is that for all your blustering, you have utterly failed to use any kind of science to back up your claims. all you are doing is arguing.
    My identity is unimportant :P I might be a college proffesor of Anthropology for all you know.

  469. #470 melior
    November 14, 2008

    @464:

    Sorry Rickr0ll, I don’t know what article you are talking about and I am to lazy reread all these blog entries to find out.

    Here’s the RickRoll link again.

  470. #471 Stanton
    November 14, 2008
    A partial answer to that is that they are both forms of information. And information that is subject to random modification eventually turns to nonsense.

    The difference between DNA and code is that DNA is self-replicating. If the changes in DNA are good, then the organism survives and gives more offspring. If the changes ever are “nonsense”, then it won’t get passed on. If you wreck the code that makes our lungs, then you can damn well be sure that person won’t survive to reproduce. Nonsense won’t get passed on, it’s that simple. Any offspring that has code that means they will have severe heart defects will be weeded out by natural selection. You just can’t pass on nonsense, it’s that simple.

    How do you expect an offspring that has severe problems to reproduce?!?

    Of course, then there is the problem that many genetic disorders arise de novo due to accidents during gametogenesis within the gonads of the parents.

  471. #472 RickrOll
    November 14, 2008

    Melior was the 1st one to do it since i’ve been here. and it’s been like 2 weeks! you guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your lakiluster performance in this area!

    thanks melior, you saved my life. just when i had thought of giving up, that there was no hope, you restored my broken soul. God bless you

  472. #473 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    But even if some designed things didn’t have flaws they would still acquire flaws due to entropy

    The contention here is whether the “flaws” are detrimental. Our system not only can handle change in code, but for evolution to work it is required. A mutation to a vital component of the system is fatal, but that won’t be passed on. But if it’s not to a vital part of the system and doesn’t affect the survival chance, then what is the problem? If someone survives to pass on their genetic code to their offspring, then their code is still a valid survival machine.

    We don’t have a design on which to decay, shannon entropy is talking about set specified information. DNA is not set specified information in that manner. Your genetic code and my genetic code are different by about 3,000,000 characters. Now which of us is nonsense? Are we not both survival machines? Have we not both reached the age where we can have children? At your age, I’m sure you’ve already had children and thus your DNA was successful.

    I have yet to sow my seed, but I’m still young and there is time. Maybe I won’t get a chance too, that I didn’t have what it takes to pass on my offspring or I choose not to. I’m still young, I have time. But the fact is that if any of my children have bad errors, or “nonsense” in their code, then they won’t survive. It’s already happened to two of my siblings, and 5 potential siblings. But me and my two other siblings have survived long enough to be potential parents (well my youngest sibling is only a teenager but he technically still could).

    The point is that you can’t get to nonsense because there are certain parts in your code that need to stay as they are in order for reproduction to occur. There are other parts that can change freely that aren’t essential to our survival. If they change, so what? That’s what your mistaking, that all you can do is have a code go to nonsense. You don’t, you have a code that can change and does change. Some of those changes bring about advantageous traits, some cause problems. Most are neutral and have no bearing on our survival abilities.

  473. Kel,

    I agree that natural selection is one of many ways to weed out negative modifications to DNA. The point of my post at #318 is that random modifications to information are zillions of times more likely to be harmful than benificial.

    It would take a lot of lucky modifications to create a new feature in a lifeform — and before all those lucky modifications could co-exist they would be clobbered by unlucky ones.

  474. #475 John Morales
    November 14, 2008

    Randy,

    I read somewhere that there is something like 1 copy error per billion nucleotides copied. Or maybe it was 2 or 3.

    Hm. If your disk drive had like 1..3 copy errors per gigabyte, you’d throw it away PDQ.

    For reference, the UBE (Unrecoverable Bit Error) rate for SCSI drives is typically specified at 1 bit in 10E15.

    As to the environment being “harsh”, you’re also arguing it was “designed” to be so, remember?

  475. #476 RickrOll
    November 14, 2008

    “zillions of times more likely…”
    WOW. FUCKING GREAT MATH. I can’t believe it never occured to me like that! your deductive skills hev rendered me breathless*

    *from laughing*

  476. #477 Randy
    November 14, 2008

    Most are neutral and have no bearing on our survival abilities.

    I don’t quite a agree with that. If you are talking about random modifications then I certainly don’t.

    I am going to go out on a limb here is suggest that a lot of changes to DNA are orqestrated — like recombination. We just don’t yet know how much orchestrated changes there are.

  477. #478 melior
    November 14, 2008

    I am not sure how reliably we can transmitt information these days.

    Hmm, I wonder if learning something about information theory might help here…

    Could it be the answer is, arbitrarily reliable, so long as we’re willing to make a tradeoff?

    Thermodynamics of error correction: speed-error-dissipation tradeoff in copying
    Bennett, C.H. Donkor, M.
    T.J. Watson Res. Center, IBM Res., Yorktown Heights, NY;

  478. #479 Randy Stimpson
    November 14, 2008

    Melior,

    Damn it. There is something I don’t know. I must be an idiot. I suppose there is a book you want me to read. Well send it to me in care of PZ. I hear he is getting a lot of those these days.

  479. #480 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    I agree that natural selection is one of many ways to weed out negative modifications to DNA. The point of my post at #318 is that random modifications to information are zillions of times more likely to be harmful than benificial.

    Yes, there are more harmful mutations than beneficial. But that doesn’t matter. There are far far more neutral mutations than detrimental. You should check out CDK007’s video on this matter.

    It would take a lot of lucky modifications to create a new feature in a lifeform

    No, it just takes an evolutionary arms race or a niche to fill. Remember that the time scales we are talking about are millions of years, hundreds of thousands of generations. Enough change over enough time on a smallish population will eventually lead to speciation. And once you have speciation then there can be no more interchange of genetic code and variation will accumulate.

  480. #481 RickrOll
    November 14, 2008

    Just look at the link you nimrod and quit being suck a god-damned brat! You aren’t 5 are you Randy? Grow up!

  481. #482 melior
    November 14, 2008

    I must be an idiot. I suppose there is a book you want me to read.

    S’okay, I’ll give instructions even an idiot could follow: scroll up to my previous comment (#477) and point your mouse at the blue part and click the left mouse button. That will make the screen in front of your face display something called an “abstract” from a “journal article”, in Information Theory Workshop, 2008. ITW ’08. IEEE.

  482. Well actually I might not have time to read that book. Kel wants me to watch a bunch you YouTube videos, Rickroll wants me to read talk origins and a couple of wikipedia articles and learn some quantum mechanics. Nerd of Redhead want me to write something in a peer reviewed journal. Santon wants me to do some labratory experiments. I just don’t know what to do first. Maybe you guys should get together prioritize my todo list :P

  483. #484 Kel
    November 14, 2008
  484. #485 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    Kel wants me to watch a bunch you YouTube videos

    The videos are only 10 minutes each and cover exactly what you are talking about.

    If you want to inform yourself watch the videos and read the articles. If you want your idea to be taken seriously (i.e. you think you have a clue) present your findings in academia through peer review.

  485. #486 Randy Stimpson
    November 14, 2008

    Kel,

    I doesn’t matter how many billions of years go by. Lucky modifications will continue to be overwhelmed by like harmful modifications. And everytime I here that arms race bullshit I laugh.

  486. #487 melior
    November 14, 2008

    *blows whistle*

    Randy, you’re doing it wrong.

    Rule 12 clearly states that you don’t get the extra 10 points on the Crackpot Index until you offer us prize money.

    10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory

  487. #488 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    If you won’t watch the first youtube video, at least read this

    We have, as I’m sure most people know, 46 chromosomes in our human cells. That means we have 23 pairs of chromosomes because you get 23 from mom and you get 23 from dad, so we’ve all got 46 total. We’ve got 23 pairs.

    Now, the curious thing about the great apes is they have more. They have, as you can see from the slide, 48 chromosomes, which means they have 24 pairs. Now, what that means, Mr. Walczak, is that you and I, in a sense, are missing a chromosome, we’re missing a pair of chromosomes. And the question is, if evolution is right about this common ancestry idea, where did the chromosome go?

    Now, there’s no possibility that that common ancestry which would have had 48 chromosomes because the other three species have 48, there’s no possibility the chromosome could have just got lost or thrown away. Chromosome has so much genetic information on it that the loss of a whole chromosome would probably be fatal. So that’s not a hypothesis.

    Therefore, evolution makes a testable prediction, and that is, somewhere in the human genome we’ve got to be able to find a human chromosome that actually shows the point at which two of these common ancestors were pasted together. We ought to be able to find a piece of Scotch tape holding together two chromosomes so that our 24 pairs — one of them was pasted together to form just 23. And if we can’t find that, then the hypothesis of common ancestry is wrong and evolution is mistaken.

    Go to the next slide. Now, the prediction is even better than that. And the reason for that is chromosomes themselves have little genetic markers in their middles and on their ends. They have DNA sequences, which I’ve highlighted in here, called telomeres that exist on the edges of the chromosomes.

    Then they have special DNA sequences at the center called centromeres, which I’ve highlighted in red. Centromeres are really important because that’s where the chromosomes are separated when a cell divides. If you don’t have a centromere, you’re in really big trouble.

    Now, if one of our chromosomes, as evolution predicts, really was formed by the fusion of two chromosomes, what we should find is in that human chromosome, we should find those telomere sequences which belong at the ends, but we should find them in the middle. Sort of like the seam at which you’ve glued two things together, it should still be there.

    And we should also find that there are two centromeres, one of which has, perhaps, been inactivated in order to make it convenient to separate this when a cell divides. That’s a prediction. And if we can’t find it in our genome, then evolution is in trouble.

    Next slide. Well, lo and behold, the answer is in Chromosome Number 2. This is a paper that — this is a facsimile of a paper that was published in the British journal Nature in 2004. It’s a multi-authored paper. The first author is Hillier, and other authors are listed as et al. And it’s entitled, The Generation and Annotation of the DNA Sequences of Human Chromosomes 2 and 4.

    And what this paper shows very clearly is that all of the marks of the fusion of those chromosomes predicted by common descent and evolution, all those marks are present on human Chromosome Number 2.

    Would you advance the slide. And I put this up to remind the Court of what that prediction is. We should find telomeres at the fusion point of one of our chromosomes, we should have an inactivated centromere and we should have another one that still works.

    And you’ll note — this is some scientific jargon from the paper, but I will read part of it. Quote, Chromosome 2 is unique to the human lineage of evolution having emerged as a result of head-to-head fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. The precise fusion site has been located, the reference then says exactly there, where our analysis confirmed the presence of multiple telomere, subtelomeric duplications. So those are right there.

    And then, secondly, during the formation of human chromosome 2, one of the two centromeres became inactivated, and the exact point of that inactivation is pointed out, and the chromosome that is inactivated in us — excuse me, the centromere that is inactivated in us turns out to correspond to primate Chromosome Number 13.

    So the case is closed in a most beautiful way, and that is, the prediction of evolution of common ancestry is fulfilled by that led-pipe evidence that you see here in terms of tying everything together, that our chromosome formed by the fusion from our common ancestor is Chromosome Number 2. Evolution has made a testable prediction and has passed.

    How else can you explain our fused chimp chromosome without common ancestry?

  488. #489 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    I doesn’t matter how many billions of years go by. Lucky modifications will continue to be overwhelmed by like harmful modifications.

    No they won’t, if you would only inform yourself about how natural selection works then you would see that it’s not a problem. Natural selection weeds out the bad mutations. Watch the CDK007 video and see how it works, he uses computer simulations of fitness to show how negative mutations get weeded out.

  489. Ok. It’s midnight here in Seattle. I should go to bed so that I can be alert enough to do decent work tomorrow. Good night.

    Kel, I think we should make a bargin. I’ll take the time to watch those you tube videos if you take the time to download the application I’ve been working on and try it out. http://www.prtracker.com That’s my business website.

  490. #491 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    Kel, I think we should make a bargin. I’ll take the time to watch those you tube videos if you take the time to download the application I’ve been working on and try it out.

    If you don’t want to watch the videos and remain ignorant of how the process works, fine. Don’t let me stop you. Just don’t preach that it can’t happen when there is information out there detailing how it can and does happen. This issue is not going to be won or lost on your ability to argue, it comes down to the evidence. If you are just going to ignore it and claim that information theory that has no relevance to the type of information DNA is invalidates evolution, you are going to continue to remain wrong and mocked by those who know better.

  491. #492 RickrOll
    November 14, 2008

    Randy, I’ve had to question your intelligence before, but leaving your business site at a place like this, saying the things you’ve said… well, that just isn’t safe. Hopefully no one will destroy it while you sleep.

  492. #493 Sven DiMilo
    November 14, 2008

    Kel wants me to watch a bunch you YouTube videos, Rickroll wants me to read talk origins and a couple of wikipedia articles and learn some quantum mechanics. Nerd of Redhead want me to write something in a peer reviewed journal. Santon wants me to do some labratory experiments. I just don’t know what to do first. Maybe you guys should get together prioritize my todo list

    Hey, I’ve got a suggestion for Priority #1!

  493. #494 abb3w
    November 14, 2008

    Rickroll: as newton said, he saw thaty Nature was a book of god’s revelationa as well, of the same caliber as the Bible

    Arguably, of higher caliber. From a religious viewpoint, the universe is the direct handiwork of God without mundane intermediaries, while Bibles and Q’rans are copies made via human means.

    Randy Simpson: And information that is subject to random modification eventually turns to nonsense.

    Unless, of course, the errors occur in a process of duplication, and there are selective pressures to eliminate nonsensical copies.

    Kel: The point is that you can’t get to nonsense because there are certain parts in your code that need to stay as they are in order for reproduction to occur

    No, you can get to that kind of nonsense. You can even “get” to nonsense that is intrinsically fatal. It’s just that such nonsenses tend to be self-eliminating over (possibly very short) time.

    Of course, some nonsense is close enough to sense to work for quite a while.

    Kel: How else can you explain our fused chimp chromosome without common ancestry?

    1) Chance; odds of approximately one in 2^(10^9), IIR.
    2) Design… which, however, requires evidence of purpose to “independently” creating either the ape or the human species so similar to the other. Without specifying the design’s purpose, the claim of design is meaningless. Without evidence to support a specific purpose, odds are the same as chance. And even then, since the design process is an evolutionary competitive selection of variations (see historian George Basalla’s book “The Evolution of Technology”), the mechanism of the purpose must be distinguished, and a probability established under present evidence relative to ordinary evolutionary mechanisms.

  494. #495 StuV
    November 14, 2008

    Damn it. There is something I don’t know. I must be an idiot.

    Witness, oh fellow Minions… Randy is starting to see the light!

    (Took him long enough)

  495. #496 Owlmirror
    November 14, 2008

    Well actually I might not have time to read that book. Kel wants me to watch a bunch you YouTube videos, Rickroll wants me to read talk origins and a couple of wikipedia articles and learn some quantum mechanics. Nerd of Redhead want me to write something in a peer reviewed journal. Santon wants me to do some labratory experiments. I just don’t know what to do first. Maybe you guys should get together prioritize my todo list

    Priority 1: Stop being a disingenuous lying moron. This is absolutely critical.

    Priority 2: Learn something about biology. You think you understand genetics, population dynamics, cellular biology, and evolution, and you obviously don’t.

    Priority 3: Learn something about thermodynamics. You think you understand entropy, and you obviously don’t.

    Priority 4: Learn something about the intersection of biology with information theory. You think you understand biostatistics and probability, and you obviously don’t.

  496. #497 Owlmirror
    November 14, 2008

    For those who are curious about what archaeology actually has discovered about the tales in the Torah:

    http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html

    In fact, not a single event from the Book of Exodus has been corroborated by archaeology, and as this section has argued, this cannot be considered a problem with archaeology. Most sites that archaeologists have determined to have been unoccupied at the supposed time of the Exodus show abundant evidence of occupation from both earlier and later periods. Surveys that easily track the movements of much smaller bands of nomadic people from much earlier than biblical times find no trace of a vast migration across the desert. Sites that are easily determined to have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times earlier, in the Early Bronze Age, or later, in the Iron Age, show no sign of disturbance or even occupation at the time the Israelites are supposed to have been destroying them.

  497. #498 David Marjanovi?, OM
    November 14, 2008

    I don’t think so bub. You can get close to -273.15Deg.C with
    cryocoolers, but as far as I know 700nK is about the coldest
    temp. produced. So how do you get to zero k in an open system?

    You make a Bose-Einstein condensate, which has 0 K. The trick is you can’t get all atoms in your sample to join the condensate; some stay outside and carry the remaining heat energy, and that’s why the temperature of the whole thing is given as micro- or nanokelvins.

    True, people say 0.0 Kelvin, but the scale is based on the Celsius scale, so to me it sounds like saying ” the temperature is 79F.” Six of one and half dozen of the other

    So what? It’s called “degrees Celsius”, but “Kelvin”. :-|

    Without the salvation that comes from the death of god’s alter ego and sacrificial lamb* Jesus, modern Christians have no link to god, so evolution, which shows Adam and Eve and their subsequent offspring could not have existed, pretty much removes the reason for their faith.

    Naaah. You’ve overlooked the Catholic way out of this: having evolved from mere animals, we have a sinful nature and do too need salvation. Never misundreshtmate the ability of Catholic theologians to wrap their theology around anything.

    To a Biblical literalist, common descent and an old Earth both mean god didn’t do what he said he did.

    Indeed.

    Does the synthesis of macromolecules, using energy resulting from ATP pathways, actually result in an increase in entropy? I’ve not bothered calculating (although my students may be doing that as a review today just so I can see the results), but it seems that this wouldn’t be the case.

    In the process, countless molecules of ATP get cleaved into ADP and P. This increases entropy, because instead of one molecule there are now two that can move around at random. And the preceding buildup of ATP also increases entropy, because it involves turning glucose and oxygen (one big and a few small molecules) into carbon dioxide and water (lots of small molecules). You can’t win, and you can’t break even :-)

    Can someone please explain to me why if we have increased entropy such as in digestion or metabolism that in the long run we still end up eventually dying?

    Murphy’s Law: our repair processes tend not to keep up forever.

    How could such processes create evolution? And why aren’t we “positively” seeing it?

    What do you mean? We are seeing it. What does “‘positively'” mean?

    I would consider a human body to be a closed system in which nothing else can come in except for food and nutrients to sustain it

    No, you don’t get to define technical terms as you please. “Closed system” means “a system which matter can neither enter nor leave”, and “isolated system” means “a system which neither matter nor energy can enter or leave”, and entropy only has to increase in isolated systems.

    I say: Okay, I have double checked with certain sources.

    Websites by creationists who don’t have the slightest idea what they’re talking about, it seems.

    I think it is you who is misinformed and uneducated on the subject. Yes, there are as you say deletions, duplications and rearrangements, but there are no “additions”. These are just tandem repeats of the same existing information… THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION.

    And then one of the duplicates starts mutating by substitution (or deletion perhaps). There you go.

    Still nothing new is happening here (evolution wise).

    See above: you were just one step away from noticing that this is wrong.

    The word “mutation” is a scary undefined word.

    Wrong. You have been too lazy to look up its definition — that’s what’s going on here!

    Only modifying what’s there is called “natural selection”.

    Yet another term that you have been too lazy to look up the definition of!

    For instance, it has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?

    I say: I am familiar with this, but what this article fails to tell us is that something like this does not happen naturally in nature (it has never been observed) only in a laboratory.

    That’s because laboratory air contains pixie dust, which works magic that cannot happen elsewhere, right? Right?

    Logic: ur doin it rong.

    For what hope have we left if evolutionary biology is correct. It would only serve to pull all our heavenly desires to a grinding hopeless halt.

    The argument from consequences is a logical fallacy. And you’re full of curry.

    This is still working with “existing information” is it not? Bacteria becoming immune or even an immunity to the AIDS virus is still not “IN MY POINT OF VIEW” anything truly new.

    Of course not. Nothing is ever truly new in evolution. :-)

    “I am as i am” what a crock!

    Not at all. It’s just “I am/was/will be” in the imperfective aspect — recall that Biblical Hebrew has no tenses, just the perfective and the imperfective aspect. “I am becoming” has been suggested as the best translation, and that would make a lot of sense…

    his Real name is El

    That’s a later merger.

  498. #499 David Marjanovi?, OM
    November 14, 2008

    The whole exodus story means Babylon when it says “Egypt”. Saying “Babylon” would have been too obvious for something that was apparently written in Babylon during the Babylonian exile (which is well documented on Babylonian clay tablets).

    Same as how the Book of the Revelation to John means Rome when it says “Babylon”.

  499. #500 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    No, you can get to that kind of nonsense. You can even “get” to nonsense that is intrinsically fatal. It’s just that such nonsenses tend to be self-eliminating over (possibly very short) time.

    I thought that was my point.

  500. #501 Intelligent Designer vs Kel
    November 14, 2008

    Ok. I have fired the first shot at Kel blog entry “There’s a monkey sitting at the type writter”.

  501. #502 Kel
    November 14, 2008

    Ok. I have fired the first shot at Kel blog entry “There’s a monkey sitting at the type writter”.

    What does that have anything to do with evolution? I made that quite clear.

    “This method does not work in the way evolution does, that was the point of the entire post. Language and DNA are simply not comparable. The whole point was to show how we can recognise specified information because it can’t be generated any other way.”

  502. #503 Rickr0ll
    November 14, 2008

    *Standing O, applause*
    Well done David. aren’t you sure your name shouldn’t have an MO next to it lol? I know EXACTLY where to take your link. thanks much!!
    However, “I am becoming as I am” doesn’t really help as i see it. And what do you mean by “later merger”? Please do explain.

  503. #504 John Morales
    November 14, 2008

    Um, Rickr0ll, David does have an OM.

    Also, it’s considered rude to ask for stuff before doing a bit of research.

  504. #505 Rickr0ll
    November 14, 2008

    Randy, the monkeys wouldn’t be sitting at typewriters, they would be typing on computers, ‘writing’ code for programs. Taking the proper metaphor, the claim is much easier to understand. I am not entirely sure who first made this significant logical leap in correcting this deeply flawed analogy (it was i think either in Godel, Escher, Bach, or one of the two programmers that i mentioned already; there is an off chance that i’m still wrong, and it is in another book i have), however, this is what would be proper to discuss. More importantly, it’s right up your alley!

  505. #506 RickrOll
    November 14, 2008

    Aha, here it is: “Computation and Complexity”, pg 55-61 in Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd

    sorry, i failed to notice that at first David :P. Anyway, i thought it would be simple enough to ask. For one thing, i wouldn’t know exactly where to start and also run the risk of getting MISinformation. Sorry if it rude to ask, i am relitively new here; forgive my insolence *bows*

  506. #507 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    I was told you love CREATIONISTS here!

    1. SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
    Evolution falls flat on it’s face before it even starts. It requires NON-living things to naturally turn into living organisms all by themselves! This is SCIENTIFICALLY and NATURALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It has never been observed and there is no evidence whatsoever that it could ever happen, under any natural circumstances. Evolution is a Fairy Tale that Mother Goose wouldn’t believe!

    In plain language, to believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK! You gotta have ROCKS in your head to believe that! Must be STONED!

    Not only that, but you must believe that ALL LIFE made itself from a ROCK. That takes more faith than the Bible account could ever require. Only a gullible religious FANATIC could possibly swallow that!

    If it could ever happen, it would be SUPER-natural. That would verify Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth! Evolution says that life arose from non-life, naturally, which is an oxymoron! It CAN’T happen naturally.

    There are really only two possibilities. Life arose naturally and created itself, or life was created Super-naturally. The only other possibilities are believed by people in rubber rooms who wear their sleeves tied behind their back. One is that we are not here, we only think we are. The other is that there was no origin, we have always been here. Both of those ideas are more bird-brained than a Cuckoo clock!

    If “life” could ever be created in a laboratory (no one has come close), all it would prove is that intelligent beings, working in a controlled environment, manipulated and experimented until they CREATED life! It would vindicate Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth! Evolution says that the life arose by ITSELF, not with the help of a Creator.

    Do not let someone fool you with the misnamed “Micro-evolution” vs. “Macro-evolution” farce. What they call micro-evolution is not evolution at all. It is genetic variation and adaptation. It does happen naturally, has been observed, and can be replicated. The ability is already contained in the genes of the organism, and is limited by those genes. Anybody who tries to confuse the two got into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn’t watching .
    Evolution (macro) says that one kind of animal TURNS INTO ANOTHER kind. It is the Fairy Tale of “The Frog Prince”, except instead of a kiss turning the frog into a Prince, it takes “millions of years”, instead. The “kiss” version is more scientific and believable! This has NEVER been observed, cannot be repeated, has absolutely NO empirical evidence, and is no more scientific than the Sunday Funnies. It is more comical than a Three Stooges film festival.

    Evolution says that a mouse becomes a moose, or a goose becomes a moose, a birch becomes a perch, a horsefly becomes a horse, and a frog becomes a Prince. Yes, it is a fairy tale too unbelievable for the brothers Grimm to include.

    2. MISSING LINKS
    The term “missing link” is an incredible underestimation, the whole CHAIN is missing! There are NO links they are ALL missing. There should be numerous transitional life forms between every species (thousands if not millions of different ones), but there is NOT even ONE indisputable link! Some evolutionists will try to claim one or two are, but they are highly suspect. All that have been proposed so far (Archaeopteryx, the horse series, Lucy, et al) have been thoroughly discredited.

    The straw that evolutionists will grasp is to claim that the links must be out there somewhere, we just haven’t found them yet. This shows the utter lack of intellectual honesty they exhibit. Evolutionists have been searching diligently for nearly 140 years since Darwin’s Fables was published. If they can’t uncover even ONE missing link in a century and a half, why should we believe anything they spew out? No evidence in 140 years, and that’s supposed to masquerade for ‘science’?

    Darwin was at least honest enough to say that the fossil record should bear the missing links IF his theory was true. The fossil record has failed miserably to show evolution. when it comes to empirical evidence, evolution is “without form and void”. Not only are there no new links discovered in the past 140 years, but there are even LESS “disputable” ones, as those formerly offered have been proven false.

    Supposedly, a theory that cannot be visibly substantiated can be verifiable or falsifiable by predictions it should be able to make. The predictions of evolution would be that the fossil record would show all kinds of transitional forms, since creatures allegedly change from one into another. The predictions of the Genesis Creation model would be that the fossil record would show all creatures fully formed, with no fractional transitions. The Creation scenario is exactly what 140 years of the best efforts of evolutionists purposefully trying to document their own foolishness have uncovered in the fossil record. Evolution is unable to make predictions worthy of a fortune cookie!

    The biggest gaps in the theory come at the beginning. We have one celled creatures. The next most “simple” creatures contain thousands of cells. Where are the two-celled transitions? How about the four-celled links? Anybody for eight? Sixteen? 32, 64, …hut! ? They have been missing longer than Amelia Earhart.

    Then comes the gap between soft creatures and invertebrates. Invertebrates have no backbone, so they instead have a shell like a lobster. How could soft tissue evolve into a lobster shell with no transitional phases on the way? Houdini could not pull that one off.
    How about invertebrate to vertebrates (creatures with a backbone)? The shell suddenly folded up, stuffed itself inside the creature, and began working as a complicated spine with no in-between stages? No, actually the theory is what suddenly “folded up”!

    There are no transitions between ANY of the species. But if there could be, they would be a PROBLEM, not the solution. How could legs evolve into wings (or scales into feathers, etc.) without first being incomplete as EITHER? That would make the evolving creature highly susceptible to being caught by predators, and being unable to catch food itself, thereby becoming extinct. If someone espousing evolution had any less sense, he’d have to be watered twice a week.

    Think about this, how did sea life supposedly evolve up into mammals, and then the whales decided to go back into the water? Are whales backsliders?

    Mammals (which whales are) give birth HEAD-first (except, of course, partial-birth aborted humans, which are turned backwards on purpose, so their brains can be sucked out before their head is out of the womb). If whales gave birth like mammals should, we wouldn’t worry about having to “save the baby whales”, they’d all drown! It takes too long for a whale to give birth. Wouldn’t you know, whales naturally give birth upside-down! Now how did evolution ‘know’ how to do that? Did it wait until all the babies drowned and then realize that they needed to give breach birth? Too late, they’d be as extinct as the theory of evolution!

    Add to this the irregularity of the fossils than do exist. Many of them are found in the wrong stratas, some are found upright through more than one strata. that would mean they took millions of years to be fossilized (if the supposed ages are accurate, which they’re not, which is another dagger into evolution). They would have decayed in that time. The Grand Canyon, for example, is missing nearly 200 million years of fossil layers.
    If you give an evolutionist a penny for his thoughts, you’d get back change.

    3. THERMODYNAMICS
    The first two laws of Thermodynamics render evolution as impossible as a Cadillac evolving from an old Datsun, after an accident. They are LAWS, provable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, empirical, scientific LAWS, not some wild dream like evolution.
    The 1st Law is the law of conservation. It states that neither matter, nor energy, can be created or destroyed. One can be changed into the other, but it cannot be annihilated.
    This proves that no matter or energy can be created by natural means. It is impossible. Again, it requires something SUPER-natural, and we are back to Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

    Evolutionists just cannot get past the very first verse in the Bible. No matter how hard they try to avoid it, we keep coming back to Gen 1:1. If one can accept that “In the beginning GOD…”, the rest of the Bible comes easy.

    They cannot explain how the first thing came into existence out of nothing. Some call that first item, the “Cosmic Egg”. Well, how did it get there? Was it laid by a cosmic chicken? Evolutionists really cannot tell which came first between the chicken and the egg!

    The second law is the law of entropy. When changing form, some of the energy becomes unusable, and thus everything runs down, decays, ages, breaks-down, becomes random, etc. when left to itself.

    This proves that evolution is absurdly impossible because it claims that we have evolved progressively. According to true science, all things break down. We should be de-volving, if natural processes take their course, they opposite of what evolution says. Of course we do not become another kind of creature, but we do age and decay as required by the 2nd law.

    Evolution is in the unenviable position of having to assert that random mutations somehow reverse the tendency of destruction inherent in the 2nd law as well as the mutations themselves.

    This law also proves impossible that something has always existed. Nothing can exist infinitely, it would wear-out sooner or later. Evolutionists must have a time buying a used car and expecting it not to break-down in spite of the maintenance and fuel added to it.
    The argument that evolutionist will use is to claim that the laws of Thermodynamics only apply to a closed system, not to an open one. There are more holes in that claim than in Swiss cheese after a machine gun attack!

    1) Thermodynamic laws have operated on every system ever observed, open or closed. It’s an open and shut case. They simply hope and pray that somewhere there is an open system that violates the law. It takes more faith than a religious zealot to believe that in the face of the fact that it’s never been observed.

    2) The universe is a closed system. An open system has an outside source feeding it energy. Of course, that means the outside source would undergo entropy. If there is something outside the universe feeding it, it is something beyond what is natural. It would be something SUPER-natural. Here we go again, right back to Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The main idea of evolution is that the universe got here with NO outside help. They cannot explain how the FIRST thing got here, without God.

    3) We are an example of an open system. We get our energy (fuel) from food and the sun. Nonetheless, we still age and DIE. Obviously the 2nd law still works in an open system. If aging and death are the evolutionist’s idea of victory over entropy, then they can expect a huge rebate from this taxing of their brains.

    4) Growth is not an example of improvement or defeating entropy. Everything needed for the entire life of an organism is present in the genes. Growth is not necessarily an improvement. It requires outside fuel, thus the provider undergoes entropy. As something grows it needs more and bigger organs to accomplish less than the original single-celled organism! Imagine how complex that original zygote must have been. Growth still doesn’t explain how one kind of creature can change into another, which is what evolution requires.

    5) Even if a living creature could defeat entropy temporarily, that doesn’t explain how the entire universe could support any kind of evolutionary scenario. The universe would’ve been destroyed before it could ever create increasing complexity all by itself (we are back to Gen 1:1 and the SUPER-natural again!)

    6) Evolutionists believe that the very same processes that have been observed only to cause decay, death, and destruction caused NOTHING to create something, and the something to make itself come alive and then to evolve into more complex creatures culminating with man. What great faith!

    7) An open system alone would not be enough to form life, even if it could defeat entropy. Also needed would be an adequate supply of energy, a conversion system to make the supply of raw energy constructive, and a control system to direct and regulate the conversion. All must exist simultaneously. None of these conditions are inherent in the origin of the universe.

    It looks like the theory of evolution is suffering from a severe case of entropy.

    5. BIG BANG BALONEY
    The first question that must be asked is, “What banged?” How did the “Cosmic Egg”, or “Hot Dot”, (or whatever the going theory proposes) come into existence? Where did the energy come from to make it bang? The Big Popgun theorizes that the egg/dot spun rapidly to form the energy to be put into motion. But, what made it spin? How did it get hot? Do they really expect sane people to believe that all of the matter in the universe was compacted into something the size of an egg or a dot! Once again, evolutionists can’t get beyond the first verse in the Bible.

    There is one fatal flaw in the Big Bang bunk. The Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum specifies that if a rotating object breaks up, the pieces will continue spinning in the same direction until acted upon by an outside force. Of course, we are talking about the origin of matter and energy, there WAS no outside force to interfere with the motion, except “In the beginning God…”!

    The problem is that two planets (Venus and Uranus), and several moons spin backwards! Some of the moons even rotate north/south instead of east/west. Some are even revolving backwards around their planet! The Angular Momentum is yet another empirical scientific LAW that must be broken for evolution to be true. If evolution keeps on being such a lawbreaker, pretty soon it will have to deal with the Lawgiver!

    The Big Bang is backwards! As a matter of fact, in the Bible account, that’s not how the world began, that’s how it will end!

    6. OXYGEN DILEMMA
    One more simple fact that evolutionists ignore is the oxygen dilemma.
    Evolutionists know that if oxygen was present when their theory of origins was taking place, that organic molecules would be destroyed before they could be made. Thus, they pretend like there was no oxygen in the early earth model.

    The problem is, with no oxygen (which would also mean no Ozone which is oxygen with an extra atom per molecule), there’d be nothing to filter the earth from harmful radiation from the sun. This includes dangerous ultra-violet rays, gamma rays, infra-red light, and others. They, especially the UV, are fatal to a forming life. UV light destroys amino acids for one.

    Thus, with, or without, oxygen, life couldn’t have naturally arisen. One more time, that puts the beginning of life in the SUPER-natural realm, back to Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Ho, hum, the evolutionists still can’t get past the very first verse in the Bible.

  507. #508 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    What a dunderhead. Starts out confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and goes even further into stupidity as he describes what he thinks evolution says or doesn’t say.

    Show me the scientific papers, from refereed scientific journals, to back up your wild, irrational arguments. If you can’t do that, you have no evidence, and no argument.

    Seems to think rhetoric equals science, which is utterly false. That post is so wrong, it isn’t even wrong.

  508. #509 Rey Fox
    November 15, 2008

    Teno: Why are you afraid of evolution?

  509. #510 Ken Cope
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi at #506, You’ve spammed Freerepublic with this, verbatim, in 2003, promising we’d have fits and run away, and you only now get around to field-testing your claims? You left off the funniest part of your so-called E-Z Evolution Refuter, the preamble!

    (Is Gumby available in blockquotes for commenters? I’ll just put a hanky on my head then, shall I?)

    This article will outline the simple, basic empirical facts that give evolutionists fits. They will run from these things as fast as they can and try to talk over everybody’s heads. They will try to sound impressive with their education and million dollar words. But they will make little, or no attempt to deal with these things.
    I will use humor and sarcasm against evolutionists. Some may get offended by that. Please bear with me, the heresies they teach are sending people to HELL. Don’t get upset because I make fun of them.
    The simple things herein will enable you to counter any evolutionist from your local teacher to Stephen Hawking or Stephen Gould. Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan already know. They are Creationists now! They donated their brains to science before they were done using them.

  510. #511 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    Ken, thanks for the history with with this troll. Five years to polish and find scientific evidence to back up his ideas, and still nothing. Says something about the laziness and moral bankruptcy of creobots.

  511. #512 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    I was told you love CREATIONISTS here!

    Well, that’s your first lie.

    And the rest is 40 paragraphs, some 300-odd sentences, of additional, already-refuted lies.

    That’s a lot of lying.

    I think that crosses the line into genuine false testimony. If there’s a Hell, you’re going to Hell.

  512. #513 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    That’s quite a steaming pile of wrong you dumped there Teno.
    (pokes at it with stick) I don’t suppose you intend to clean it up?
    I’ll just respond to one of your points: the “oxygen dilemma”. Abiogenesis is thought to have occurred in water, which, if it is deep enough, does a fine job of blocking harmful radiation. That was easy!

  513. #514 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    “Abiogenesis is THOUGHT to have occurred in water”

    What a laugh — “THOUGHT”! You are delusional, where is any of this proof?! I suppose only in theory.

    Try again, this lacks believability.

  514. #515 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    Try again, this lacks believability.

    Everything you wrote lacks believability, you bearer of false witness.

  515. #516 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    Teno, still no cited scientific literature for your ideas? Are you just an idiot? If you have an argument, you need some facts (evidence) to back it up. Attempting to tear down the other side does not prove your ideas. Now, time to cite the scientific literature backing your ideas, or go back home and stay there. Without proof you have nothing. At the moment, you just look like an illiterate fool.

  516. #517 Nick Gotts
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi,
    What will you do when your ludicrous ravings have no effect? There isn’t a fresh thought in the whole stinking heap of feculent vomit you just produced. Idiots like you have been spewing rubbish like this for 150 years, while evolutionary theory goes from strength to strength, and research on the distinct problem of abiogenesis makes rapid progress. On the latter, have a look at the work of Shostak for example, and come back with a detailed, rational critique – or not at all.

  517. #518 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    “Abiogenesis is THOUGHT to have occurred in water”

    What a laugh — “THOUGHT”! You are delusional, where is any of this proof?! I suppose only in theory.

    Try again, this lacks believability.

    Yes Teno, it is thought to have occurred in water. Just about all of biochemistry happens in water. All of our oldest fossils come from aquatic environments. Its not exactly a wild shot in the dark to suppose that abiogenesis occurred there.

  518. #519 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    “Abiogenesis is THOUGHT to have occurred in water”

    And the evidence is as follows:

    1) Every living cell is composed of mostly water;

    2) Water is absolutely vital to life; all of the chemical reactions that involve life require water

    3) The ocean is teeming with life, more so than the land, and far more so than the air. A bucket of ocean water will have billions of microscopic organisms living in it.

    4) The Szostak Laboratory and other researchers into the origins of life have found several promising chemical reactions, all of which take place in liquid water.

    5)
      a) Water is very common, covering 75% of the planet, with the oceans reaching from the equator to the poles, and to depths of some 10 kilometers.
      b) Light penetration in all frequencies falls off in recognizable gradients as depth increases.
      c) Convection brings warmer water up into lighter zones and back down again into darker zones.

    6) Water temperatures on the Earth can range from completely frozen to ice-water slurries to ordinary liquid, to boiling, to superheated states under extreme pressures. This allows for an equally large range of chemical reactions that can take place in each of these conditions.

    And so on. So that’s 6 thoughts with a large range of potential implications for the origins of life.

    Meanwhile, theists can’t get God to talk about what he allegedly did. Theism fails.

  519. #520 Ken Cope
    November 15, 2008

    where is any of this proof?! I suppose only in theory.

    See, this sort of mocking response (with the capslock and exclamation marks and the ignorance of the way words like proof and theory are used by people with even a high school level of understanding of science) shows that TG’s style of discourse is suitable only for those who reject and deny science, out of stubborn, willful ignorance, and sheer intellectual sloth.

  520. #521 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    Owlmirror said “The Szostak Laboratory and other researchers into the origins of life have found several promising chemical reactions, all of which take place in liquid water.”

    Which brings up another point. Between complete ignorance of abiogenesis and having it nailed down is a wide spectrum of levels of knowledge. While science doesn’t know (yet) how it occurred, it has moved far enough along that spectrum to disturb the sleep of any creationist scientifically literate enough to understand it (which obviously excludes Teno Groppi.)

  521. #522 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    Hogwash about the water. Science 101 on hydrolysis tells us that water is “necessary” for life, but it is also detrimental “to the origins” of life since it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds. Look it up, its in your basic chemistry book.

    Your imagination here that water creates life resembles the wings of a pig.

  522. #523 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    Hogwash on you. Look up the origins of life research.

    Your imagination that God creates life is less believable than the wings of a pig.

  523. #524 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    Teno, that is not what I taught in introductory organic. Just another creation liar. Your lies are just too easy to refute. Time to shut up.

  524. #525 Ken Cope
    November 15, 2008

    Your imagination here that water creates life resembles the wings of a pig.

    Nobody here has made a claim even remotely similar to the claim that water creates life. Adding reading comprehension to the checklist.

  525. #526 Bronze Dog
    November 15, 2008

    Science 101 on hydrolysis tells us that water is “necessary” for life, but it is also detrimental “to the origins” of life since it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds. Look it up, its in your basic chemistry book.

    Reminds me of one creationist nut who said water breaks down all chemical bonds, and apparently believes the world turns into soup whenever it rains.

    This is slightly less stupid. I have a hard time believing this because aren’t all our amino acids in water right now?

    As for Creationism, as so many others have pointed out, it hasn’t gotten beyond screaming “Magic! Voodoo! Pixies! Chi!” as their explanation for anything.

  526. #527 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    I wish I could link to an article I read some time back, which listed the umpteen times that creationists predicted the imminent “death of Darwinism”, beginning shortly after the On the Origin of Species was published, but I can’t find it with a quick search (there’s too much “noise”). It was a looooooong list, well-populated in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it apparently continues.

  527. #528 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    Teno groppi said:”Hogwash about the water. Science 101 on hydrolysis tells us that water is “necessary” for life, but it is also detrimental “to the origins” of life since it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds. Look it up, its in your basic chemistry book.”,

    …”it decomposes the molecules of amino acid bonds” Whaaa? That’s gibberish.

    “Your imagination here that water creates life resembles the wings of a pig. “

    Nobody said, or believes, that water “creates” life; water is the environment in which live arose. If you are going to persist in this, you really should educate yourself about the science you’re criticizing. You wouldn’t go to a physics site to argue quantum theory armed only with what you remember from high school physics, would you? Then why would you come here with only the misinformation and the cartoon version of evolution you picked up from creationists?

  528. #529 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    I had noticed that some of you are very careful in choosing your words and responding that science doesn’t know (yet) how it occurred. This is obviously the truth along with acknowledging that IT HAS NEVER BEEN WITNESSED not even in the most sophisticated laboratories in the world.

    You people are sitting in a sewer of crapulous lout and adding to it. And, you are so full of it that even the toilets are jealous.

    Your claims (and theories) are essentially rootless.

  529. #530 Nick Gotts
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi,
    You are a pathetic moron. Of course we say that we don’t yet know how life first emerged, because we don’t. Science is not complete, peabrain, but advances continue apace, with absolutely no reason to think abiogenesis cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Until you’ve done as I suggested, and studied current work, such as that of Shostak, your stupid remarks are worthless. Now fuck off, there’s a good troll.

  530. #531 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    I had noticed that some of you are very careful in choosing your words and responding that science doesn’t know (yet) how it occurred.

    Says the guy speaking for a God that never says anything at all.

    Your claims (and theories) are essentially rootless.

    They are based on reason and evidence.

    Your claims and arguments are obviously all false, you liar.

  531. #532 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    Teno crappino, why don’t you take a gander at wikipedia’s article on abiogenisis before you sling anymore of your ignorant shit around eh?

  532. #533 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    Teno groppi said:

    “I had noticed that some of you are very careful in choosing your words and responding that science doesn’t know (yet) how it occurred. This is obviously the truth along with acknowledging that IT HAS NEVER BEEN WITNESSED not even in the most sophisticated laboratories in the world. “

    Science hasn’t been able to reproduce an event that took place more than 3.5 billion years ago,over a period of thousands, if not millions of years, under conditions only partially understood.
    Wow. What a comeback. You sure got us there Teno. /sarcasm
    Assume, for the sake of argument, that the hypothesis of natural abiogenesis is correct. What makes you think that science should be able to replicate it?

    “You people are sitting in a sewer of crapulous lout and adding to it. And, you are so full of it that even the toilets are jealous.”

    Exactly what Jesus would have said!

  533. #534 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    Teno, you do realise the TOE doesn’t address abiogenesis, but change of existing life?

    No, it hasn’t been observed (hard to do, it occurred billions of years ago). However, science is close to duplicating that feat – i.e. creating life de novo.

    You’re in denial.

  534. #535 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    Let me amend my last comment to read: Why should science be able to replicate it today right now?

  535. #536 Nick Gotts
    November 15, 2008

    By the way, Groppi, just what is a “sewer of crapulous lout”? I don’t think the words in that phrase mean what you think they do. But then, there clearly aren’t many things that mean what you think they do.

  536. #537 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    tresmal, even if (I think when) science creates life from scratch, it will only prove that it can be done, not that it was the way it actually happened. I can’t see how that can ever be definitively known, but doing that much is enough to remove any need for the supernatural.

  537. #538 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    You finally concede!

    I never though the day would come.

    I will certainly be going now to let you hoodwinked fools bicker endlessly (unresolved) among yourselves.

    Maybe you’d be better off doing some soul searching.

  538. #539 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    listen Teno, if your god is SO DAMN SMART, have him submit his own fucking researcth paper! OR at the very least, dictate it to someone! That would solve all your problems, but sadly, illusions are not a suitable substitute for Scientific trial and mathmatical/experimental rigor, and they never will.

  539. #540 Ken Cope
    November 15, 2008

    #537.

    TG declares victory and scarpers. Nobody could have seen that one coming.

  540. #541 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    Teno, you don’t have theory until you prove god exist. Where is your proof for god? A nice piece of physical evidence is required. Or is that beyond your feeble skills?

    No god, no creation. Simple.

  541. #542 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    Who conceded what?

    I concede that Teno Groppi is a liar.

  542. #543 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi bullshat:

    You finally concede!

    I never though the day would come.

    I will certainly be going now to let you hoodwinked fools bicker endlessly (unresolved) among yourselves.

    The ol’ Vietnam strategy; declare victory and leave. You really mean you got your ass handed to you and are now tucking your tail between your legs and are scurrying away.

    Maybe you’d be better off doing some soul searching.

    Maybe you should do some science searching.

  543. #544 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    @537: apotheosis of denial.

  544. #545 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    well, if he’s gone, that’s one less ulcer in my stomach. and that’s all that matters at the end of the day right?

  545. #546 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    John Morales @536 I agree completely.

  546. #547 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 15, 2008

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

    Is Teno from an alternate reality?

    More comedic gold.

  547. #548 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    even if (I think when) science creates life from scratch, it will only prove that it can be done, not that it was the way it actually happened.

    Two thoughts: It may be possible to show that whichever way was found was indeed the most uniquely probable chemical reaction path due to the various contingent conditions.

    And if it doesn’t look like that particular chemical reaction path was particularly unique, why stop at just one process of creating life? I can see abiogenesis research branching into both continued applied biotechnology and more and more advanced organic chemistry, and of course, both branches building upon and feeding into each other.

    The point being, the science would not just stop even if one particular definite abiogenesis process was discovered, and if there are more to be discovered, they will be.

  548. #549 Feynmaniac
    November 15, 2008

    Ah, what a despicable tactic. Just declare victory (don’t even say how it’s a victory) and leave. Fortunately, it’s fooling no one.

  549. #550 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    Dear Redhead,

    Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.

  550. #551 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.

    Two lies (or three? or four?) in one comment…

  551. #552 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    Teno, you are irrelavent and an ignoramus, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out ok?

  552. #553 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    Teno, the burden of proof is upon those making the claims. If you claim god caused creation, then you must prove god. You non-answer is really an answer saying you are a lying sack of shit because you know you can’t prove god. Time to put up or shut up. Shut up means going away and never returning.

  553. #554 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    Owlmirror,

    The point being, the science would not just stop even if one particular definite abiogenesis process was discovered, and if there are more to be discovered, they will be.

    Well, we’re sure bickering, aren’t we? ;)

    I love science – so many things what were unimagined by our ancestors have come to pass in my lifetime – things which were considered impossible by science past (actual imaging of atoms and of extra-solar planets, for instance).
    You remind me of Clarke’s “laws”.

    Science is anything but dogmatic, though practicioners of it may well be.

  554. #555 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    my vote’s “shut up.” How do we know he isn’t a sockpuppet anyway? there’s alot of stupid floating around here these days… On the other hand, his stupid has a distinct revolting smell, dirrerent from the other’s…

  555. #556 Feynmaniac
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi #506,

    It looks like the theory of evolution is suffering from a severe case of entropy.

    Did you even what this thread is about? At the very top of the page this argument is completely destroyed.

  556. #557 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    Clarke’s 3rd is my favorite one to ponder. I actually did a short story once from the perspective of a sentient being made of nanobots that lived around one of the brine seas on the ocean floor once. Superintelligent algea basically, “magic weed” lol. I was wondering, has ANY scientific theory ever been discarded without a replacement being made first? If there hasn’t, it makes it completely idiotic for any ID/creationist nuts to be raving about how wrong we are because they have no theories or hypothoses to speak of, only notions and ideas, with no math/ evidence to back it up.

  557. #558 abb3w
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi […]

    Sigh.
    1) Spontaneous generation
    1.1) …more properly should be referred to as “Abiogenesis” or “the Biogenic Transition”, to separate it from the discredited conjecture involving timescales eight to twelve orders of magnitude smaller.
    1.2) …is separate from the question of evolutionary development after the development of a universal common cellular ancestor.
    1.3) …has a fair bit of research supporting it. See doi:10.1039/a803602k for a overview of the chemistry, and doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105 for a recent overview of the math.

    Incidentally, you misuse the terms microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution refers to genetic mutations within a population with the potential to diffuse (EG: sexually) within the rest of the population. Speciation results when a population is divided into two (or more) groups where there is a substantive probabilistic barrier against such diffusion Thereafter, new microevolutionary mutations in one subgroup are macroevolutionary to the other.

    2) Missing links
    2.1) …are example of how the data set is incomplete. However, a complete data set is an impossibility; data are always incomplete. Science is a philosophical tool designed to determine the most probable character of data yet to be found.

    Also, you misunderstand “falsifiability”. In a more formal mathematical sense, this equates to “is distinguishable from the null hypothesis”. Let me know if you want details.

    3) Thermodynamics
    3.1) First law, see below under “big bang”.
    3.2) AGAIN, see paper: “Natural selection for least action”, by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178). When the second law of thermodynamics is expressed for connected subsystems with mass-energy flow between, natural selection is a mathematical consequence.

    4) There was no 4.

    5) The Big Bang
    5.1) The big bang is also independent of the question of evolution, as with the Biogenic transition.
    5.2) Weirdly, the total mass-energy of the universe to within measurement limits is… zero. If correct, the big bang does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. There is a related analysis showing that the entropy increase involved means that having something is higher entropy than having nothing.
    5.3) The “problems” with angular momentum result from assuming a perfectly uniform distribution of the universe. The development of local backward “eddies” is easy enough in several models of solar system development (EG: coalescence from a cloud of atoms with initial velocities random but bounded by net mass escape velocity), especially with Jupiter providing “slingshot” effects.

    6) Oxygen
    6.1) …existed, but was admittedly tied up in compounds instead of O2 and O3
    6.2) …of those compounds, H2O and CO2 provide perfectly tolerable UV barriers

  558. #559 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 15, 2008

    Dear Keno,

    It is incredible how little I talk of god when there is no religious person around to bring up the topic.

    But, hey, you “won”. Go celebrate! Break open the champagne and stray it about. You deserve it.

  559. #560 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    RickrOll, Ken Cope #509 mentioned Teno is an old creobot who hasn’t changed his arguments in five years. Typical. The creationists haven’t had an original thought since Darwin’s day. So at the end of the day, they sound very similar. Meanwhile, science has progressed 150 years which they never seem to grasp. Teno will be back to try to get the last word. But we will.

    Science is anything but dogmatic,

    Very true. Science will change as the evidence changes. But for creationism/ID to be considered, they have to prove their case with evidence (not rhetoric) that isn’t explained by evolution. So far, the creationist/ID movement has been very poor about getting their physical evidence into the scientific literature.

    So Teno, you need to publish your evidence in scientific journals instead of posting rhetoric here.

  560. #561 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    abb3w, that was great. I’ll be doing some reading, just so you don’t waste your effort on the creobot.

    “Pearls before swine” and all that…

  561. #562 Feynmaniac
    November 15, 2008

    abb3w,

    4) There was no 4

    LMAO…..Teno couldn’t even correctly number his bad arguments.

  562. #563 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    Abb3w; wow, you slogged your way through that entire mess. If I could buy you a drink I would.
    The thing that strikes me is that I get the impression that he(?) genuinely thinks that that pitiful pile of errors, non sequiturs, assertions and gibberish is really truly a devastating and fatal critique of evolution. Sad. Hilarious, but sad.

  563. #564 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    All you people are good for is leading the league in nostril hair! Your defeat over me is like being savaged by dead sheep.

    Look, you conceded that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that living things evolved from water. Yet you continue to imagine like teddy bears eating cookies that it somehow found a way, which let me remind you has not been discovered yet, nor will it ever be. Szostak Laboratory is nowhere near creating life consisting of 100% left handed amino acids (which are completely evident in all forms of living things). It isn’t creating anything new. It uses existing materials that were all ready present. This is just manipulating things that we already have here on earth.

    You continue to envision something that is not there. Now I suspect that you will come back with some sort of trolling retort spinning what I just said to your own means.

    This forum is very bias, I think I should invite some of my creationist friends to even things up.

  564. #565 Kel
    November 15, 2008

    New creotard makes Randy seem intelligent

  565. #566 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    abb3w, your second link seems at first sight to be somewhat ad-hoc, if not facile. It seems more of a tutorial on using (simple) math than an examination of physical cosmology. It doesn’t, for example, address dark matter/dark energy.

    Which is not to say I dispute the point you make in the comment.

  566. #567 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    Abb3wL @557: Excellent.
    *sigh* How much blame can i put on the creobots when our own education system in this country is Atrocious! it makes me so sad that we are still producing morons like these by default in the Bible Belt, and it doesn’t help that in genral there is a completely anti-intellectual movement in this country (evidenced by S*r*h P*l*n- i dares not speaks it’s name hissssss!! The attacks on Obama as an ‘elitist’ spring from this very same primitive sector of the brain). Looking at the education systems of Russia (my chemistry Proffesor is from Russia, so i know from her) and Japan, where Calculus is taken in 8th grade, to mention only 1 example, it makes me wonder if there is any chance that this epiphenomenon of blustering idio-centric, anti-evolution bollocks will dissapear. But i digress…

  567. #568 nanu nanu
    November 15, 2008

    I think it’s probable Teno, currious and randy are the same person as all three continually use differently spelled variations of their names. My kill-file is damn near useless because I keep having to add them again when they post as the spelling has changed just that much.

    I know currious has posted here before because of that annoying thing where instead of quotation marks or block quoting they do that “blank said:” thing which annoyed me when someone else (can’t for the life of me remember who) did it a while back.

    Of course I could just be a paranoid fuck.

  568. #569 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    Teno @563, you want to bring in other masochists who wish to be ridiculed as much as you have been? That’s weird, and perverse.

  569. #570 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    On the original web-page, there is a heading that includes
    “4. MICRO-BIOLOGY”. There is no corresponding subsection.

    It’s said that since at least Feb 2001 (Internet Archive), and possibly earlier (date of the web page).

    It’s like he spewed out his lies 7 or 8 years ago, and then ran out of steam. Not only did he not correct them with the rebuttals that must have been made many times before now, he didn’t even edit the page so that it looked slightly less moronic in terms of the formatting and numbering.

    Sloth is a sin, son, as is false witness. You’re going to Hell with all the rest of us.

  570. #571 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    Oh, the joys of raving ignoramuses. Most of your statement have already been debunked before you even made them. You haven’t read the scientific literature, and it shows.

    Be a good little boy and go back to cellar and tinfoil hats. Somebody is out to get you.

  571. #572 Kel
    November 15, 2008

    Look, you conceded that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that living things evolved from water.

    No, but there is plenty of proof that livings things do and have evolved. The moment of abiogenesis took place around 3.8 billion years ago, and all we have to recreate it is a few rocks and minerals from that time. We don’t know the series of events that led to life, but that is abiogenesis and not evolution. Evolution happened, it’s scientific fact. We see mutation, adaptation and speciation both in nature and in the lab.

    Abiogenesis is a necessary consequence of evolution, it’s the origin of life as opposed to adaptation. We know it had to have happened, we just don’t know how. It doesn’t make evolution any less valid, it’s just another question that needs to be answered. Not knowing how the solar system formed doesn’t make heliocentric orbit wrong.

  572. #573 nanu nanu
    November 15, 2008

    re-reading the thread it looks like Teno is a distinct personality (ken cope 509)

    I maintain my stance that currious has been here before though, no way more than one person uses that type of quoting

  573. #574 Feynmaniac
    November 15, 2008

    This forum is very bias

    Reality and empirical evidence also have a well known liberal bias.

  574. #575 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi/currious(?)/Randy(?): why don’t you go play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself? seriously, are you dropping acid? You fucking imbecile. You know what, no. I’ll let the big boys handle you. You aren’t worth 1 second more of my time.

  575. #576 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    Look, you conceded that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that living things evolved from water.

    No-one conceded any such thing, you moron liar, since no one claimed that “living things evolved from water”.

    This forum is very bias, I think I should invite some of my creationist friends to even things up.

    Why would anyone care what additional liars say? Until you invite God to demonstrate miraculous creation from nothing, you are all just spewing ignorant lies.

  576. #577 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 15, 2008

    Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 15, 2008

    All you people are good for is leading the league in nostril hair!

    What sport is that, Sport?

    Look out, Teno has a magnifying glass, glancing up our noses, counting, counting.

  577. #578 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    More noise from Teno Groppi:

    All you people are good for is leading the league in nostril hair! Your defeat over me is like being savaged by dead sheep.

    You suck at insults.

    Look, you conceded that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that living things evolved from water.

    Nobody ever thought that life “evolved from water”. Water is the medium in which abiogenesis occurred. If you can’t understand that basic a distinction, you have no business being here.

    Yet you continue to imagine like teddy bears eating cookies…

    Whaaa?

    …that it somehow found a way, which let me remind you has not been discovered yet, nor will it ever be. (my emphasis)

    Argument by assertion. Unless you can back that up

    Szostak Laboratory is nowhere near creating life consisting of 100% left handed amino acids (which are completely evident in all forms of living things).

    You mean scientists aren’t done yet? Shocking!

    It isn’t creating anything new. It uses existing materials that were all ready present. This is just manipulating things that we already have here on earth.

    Just like abiogenesis.

    This forum is very bias, I think I should invite some of my creationist friends to even things up.

    Please do. Maybe 4 or 5 of you could combine to come up with a 3 digit IQ.

    You continue to envision something that is not there. Now I suspect that you will come back with some sort of trolling retort spinning what I just said to your own means.

    WE are envisioning something that isn’t there!? Talk about clueless.

  578. #579 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    Its you people who are paranoid. I was invited to take a look at this forum by the poster Curious.

    I would suffice to say that there is no neutral ground. It seems that every square inch and every split second someone is posting some counterclaimed drivel by satan. It just seems to go on and on. I have never seen a forum having people glued to their computers and posting nonstop all day long. If this isnt a measure of control or addiction I dont know what is. I think its actually a sickness!

    You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control. You know, I veagly remember one of Hitlers tactics of control. He wanted all the school books to be indoctrinated the way that he thought they should be as a measure of controling the nations rational thinking — so that he could control them to see the Jew as something reduced as a plague on society. When in reality is was the Jews that were the real achievers (something that satan drastically hates). I guess hes still trying to destroy the promised seed. The same idea of evolutionist thinking seem to be very prevelent here and working in the fields of science.

    Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred. Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable. Can you imagine the far reaching power of this indoctrination of evolutionistic ideas.

    You people are ignorant and DANGEROUS!

  579. #580 abb3w
    November 15, 2008

    John Morales abb3w, your second link seems at first sight to be somewhat ad-hoc, if not facile.

    The “zero energy” one? True; however, that link’s pretty easy to find via Google, so I usually use it when the topic comes up. I haven’t bothered to track down a good technical paper on that one yet, nor the followup about how having something is higher entropy than having nothing. My interest is in other areas of math.

    Others should feel free to find better references on the topic (EG, via Google Scholar) and post ‘em.

    I, however, enjoy my sloth.

  580. #581 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    So anybody who accepts evolution is a Satan-worshipping nazi rapist? Ooookay. That tinfoil hat you’re wearing is defective.

  581. #582 Kel
    November 15, 2008

    Its you people who are paranoid. I was invited to take a look at this forum by the poster Curious.

    That explains a lot, he was mentally defective too.

    You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control.

    lol, provide evidence for Satan’s existence and irrefutable evidence that we are under his control.

    Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred. Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable. Can you imagine the far reaching power of this indoctrination of evolutionistic ideas.

    Yet in the US prison system there are almost no atheists and there’s a disproportionate number of baptists.

    And teaching science is not indoctrination. Teaching ideas that are contrary to reality and putting hell as a consequence for not believing is indoctrination. Science just works on empirical data, and anyone is free to ignore it as they want with no consequences. Evolution happened, all evidence points to it. If you can’t handle that then fine. But the reason it’s the only concept of life taught in science is that it’s the only idea that fits the evidence. Universe is at least 13.7 billion years old, solar system is 4.6 billion years old, life began around 3.7 billion years ago and there’s been gradual change over time. Humans only appear in the last couple of hundred thousand years ago. If you can think of a theory that fits all the evidence, then present it to the academic arena. If you can’t, then you are just another indoctrinated fool who thinks their ignorance trumps hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge.

  582. #583 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    I also observe that many of you use foul words, and are evidently ANGRY! (where is the forum moderator here?)

    Once you lose your temper, you’ve lost the argument.

  583. #584 llewelly
    November 15, 2008

    Teno Groppi:

    You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control. You know, I veagly remember one of Hitlers tactics of control. He wanted all the school books to be indoctrinated the way that he thought they should be as a measure of controling the nations rational thinking — so that he could control them to see the Jew as something reduced as a plague on society.

    Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

    I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.

  584. #585 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    It seems that every square inch and every split second someone is posting some counterclaimed drivel by satan.

    Is that who you really are? Well, it sure makes sense, you being the Father of Lies.

    You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control.

    Well, that’s why we argue with you, Satan.

    You people are ignorant and DANGEROUS!

    Yes, you are. Liar.

  585. #586 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    Once you lose your temper, you’ve lost the argument.

    No, once you lose your mind, you’ve lost the argument. Which for you looks to have been at least 8 years ago, if not earlier.

  586. #587 Nerd of Redhead
    November 15, 2008

    Lets see. PZ is a mild mannered professor who got thrown out trying to see a movie he was in, but the ID people behind the movie felt he would disrupt it. And the same people let in Richard Dawkins, best selling atheist/evolutionist into that movie. Doesn’t speak well for the intelligence or morals of the creobots. You, Teno, fall into the same group of non-thinkers.

    Still no physical proof for your god. Still no scientific proof for your assertions. Just intellectually bankrupt verbiage. What a loser.

  587. #588 abb3w
    November 15, 2008

    Tenno Groppi: I have never seen a forum having people glued to their computers and posting nonstop all day long.

    Try Fark.com (which has a thread triggered by the same paper as here dying out as well).

    Tenno Groppi: Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable.

    This definition of “acceptable” neglects that morality is itself subject to evolutionary improvement. (See, for example, Darwin’s Cathedral, ISBN 0226901343.) Again, the slippery slope to Social Spencerism is raised; it’s a strawman these days.

  588. #589 Kel
    November 15, 2008

    And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited. – Adolf Hitler

    My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profpoundly than ever before that it was for this that he had to shed his blood on the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…”. – Adolf Hitler

    Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people. – Adolf Hitler

  589. #590 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    I think it clear “Teno” is just trolling at this point.
    Like any troll, it craves attention, even if it’s only insults, and lacks the nous to realise it’s not actually disrupting the forum (we’re what, into the sixth century of comments?).

    Pathetic, I know.

  590. #591 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    Owlmirror,

    Everyone can see that you are the spin-master of the conversation. What a bunch of billage!

    As for all you evolutionists. There is a condition worse than blindness, and that’s seeing something that isn’t there.

  591. #592 RickrOll
    November 15, 2008

    i see currious has very E-steamed [horse shit] company; what a coward, he won’t even come over here himself. You know what, it is very very curious to me that this guy shows up immediatelly after PZ’s Mac crashes. do you guys leave the window open all the time and idiots can buzz in like mosquitos (well, no, not mosquitos, because mosquitos take something of SUstanance from their host, as opposed to being copmpletely hare-brained pissants), or is this caliber of shit-for-brains somewhat of a “blue moon” occurance?

  592. #593 abb3w
    November 15, 2008

    Apropos nothing at hand, anyone still lurking about care to throw out a one-to-three sentence description of how/why Evolutionary variation is radiative, especially when selective pressures are absent?

  593. #594 John Morales
    November 15, 2008

    abb3w @592, as someone with no more than a high-school education (completed in 1977), I offer this: Niche expansion and adaptation.

  594. #595 Owlmirror
    November 15, 2008

    Everyone can see that you are the spin-master of the conversation.

    Because I know a liar when he won’t shut up?

  595. #596 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    Teno:”As for all you evolutionists. There is a condition worse than blindness, and that’s seeing something that isn’t there.”
    And that’s not a problem for creationists right? You have absolutely no clue of the complete lack of self awareness you show, do you?
    Completely oblivious to irony.
    I notice you’ve stopped even pretending to debate science.

  596. #597 Teno Groppi
    November 15, 2008

    This forum is officially a fossilized wash rag. It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability.

  597. #598 tresmal
    November 15, 2008

    By the way; you forgot to mention that in addition to being Satan-worshipping nazi rapists, we also eat babies. Live babies. Live unbaptized babies.

  598. #599 Owlmirror
    November 16, 2008

    It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability.

    You describe yourself rather well.

  599. #600 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    i think this whole “the human body is proof” aspect of Creationism is crap. let’s see: wisdom teeth, very dangerous development of the brain in adolescents (due to the reason/judgement part of the brainbeing the very last to develop), i see almost no instinct that would help us survive as it were, and the most amazing thing of all: we’re improving on God’s porported design! it’s histerical. I don’t know of anyone who has looked deeply into this, but they have made artifiscial red blood cells that are smaller and more effiecient that Real blood cells. And we’re not talking only marginally more efficient, they can carry 270x the amount of oxygen as a normal red blood cell. amazing huh? they are working on artificial white blood cells and other things as well. We have made nano-scale material that outstrips a gecko in stickiness by 2-3x, and i could go on… the research is very far from over, and not until we have expanded and improved on every facet that we see in nature, will our work be near completion. Amazing what science can do.

  600. #601 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    Groppi, we can’t miss you if you don’e LEAVE!

  601. #602 John Morales
    November 16, 2008

    Hm, I was too terse in responding to #592. How about “Unavoidable mutation increases variation, which leads to niche expansion, which leads to adaptation; repeat”. I suppose that involves selective pressures, but I don’t see how such can be avoided, since by definition any environment implies selection for organisms that can survive in that environment, and organisms must (given limited resources) compete with one another.

    Still one sentence, though.

  602. #603 Teno Groppi
    November 16, 2008

    Please point out to me where any of you thoroughly discussed in full length anything remotely scientific except for pure 100% royal rhetoric in all of these nearly 600 posts?

    All you have done is cited others work – like parrots, along with bowing down to the holy scientific textbook (that you hold so dear to you). Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?

  603. #604 John Morales
    November 16, 2008

    @602, Teno trolls again. Teno just loves being put down and derided. Go Teno, go.

  604. #605 WithoutSol
    November 16, 2008

    Teno,

    “Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred.”

    What does this even mean? Break it down for us….

    You make “set from animal to man” sound like some sort of phase shift. man = animal.

  605. #606 WithoutSol
    November 16, 2008

    “All you have done is cited others work – like parrots, along with bowing down to the holy scientific textbook (that you hold so dear to you). Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?”

    Teno, its Textbook(s). Plural. We have more than one book to site, unlike creationist.

    Teno, do you even know how scientific research is accomplished?

    Hold on, I think I have more troll food in the basement…. brb.

  606. #607 tresmal
    November 16, 2008

    More Groppi: “All you have done is cited others work ”
    1) Citing others’ work is scientific.
    2) Its a hell of a lot more than you’ve done.

    Speaking of which; where is your evidence for creation. Your case against evolution- pathetic as it is- doesn’t count. It helps the Hindu creation story and other religions’ stories as much as it helps yours. Scripture doesn’t count either. You can’t use the bible to prove the bible. What I’m talking about here is actual positive evidence for creation. I’m guessing (actually I know) that you’ve got nothing.

  607. #608 Teno Groppi
    November 16, 2008

    RickrOLL,

    Your extremism of technology needs to be though of in a different light. Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?

    Here are some examples:

    Camera (lens, focus, iris, film) / Eye (cornea curves to focus, iris, retina)
    Microphone / Ear drum / Amphitheatre shape / Outer ear shape
    Pump / Heart / Valves Heart valves
    Plumbing and hydraulic systems / Circulatory system
    Communication / telephone cables / Spinal cord / nervous system
    Ball joint / Shoulder joint
    Windshield wiper / Eye lid
    Wiper fluid / Tears
    Knife / Incisor teeth
    Mortar and pestle / Molar teeth
    Woodwinds / Voice box
    Computer / Electronic circuitry / Brain
    Computer program / DNA
    Bubble level / Inner ear tubes for balance
    Construction crane (jointed arm, scoop) / Arm and hand
    Honeycomb reinforcements / Bee’s honeycomb
    Solar panel (energy from light) / Leaf
    Fish hook (reverse barb design) / Bee stinger
    Light stick (light from chemical reactions) / Firefly
    Airplanes (airfoil wings, hollow struts, tail) / Birds (airfoil wings, hollow bones, tail)
    Submarine ballast / Fish (ballast bladder)
    Sonar / Bats, dolphins
    Paper from wood pulp / Wasp hives
    Velcro / Thistle burrs (actually inspired Velcro)
    Blu-blocker sunglasses / Orange oil in eagle eyes to improve acuity
    Suction cups / Octopus
    Inboard propulsion (boats) / Squid
    Batteries (electricity from chemicals) / Eel
    Navigation by stars / magnetic fields / Bird and butterfly migration
    Music / Song birds
    Anesthetics / Venoms and poisons
    Swim fins, paddles / Webbed feet (frogs, ducks)
    Water cooled systems / Sweat glands and perspiration
    Core aeration for health of lawns / Worms, insects and moles

    Hypodermic syringe / Snake fangs, also mechanism used by viruses to inject into cells
    Antibiotic medicines / Immune system
    Hydraulic shock absorbers / Knee joints
    Dust filter / Nostril hairs
    VCR, magnetic storage media / Memory, recording/viewing images
    Gyroscope, top / Planetary rotation
    Magnets / Lodestone
    Internet / Brain, also Society
    Mirror / Reflection on water
    Wheel / Animals that curl and roll (armadillo)
    Plastics (of many varieties and qualities) / Carbon-based life forms
    (of bone, cartilage, tissues, transparent lenses, wood, feathers, etc., and all bio-degradable!)

    Gasoline (expensive, dirty) / Methane (free, clean)
    Barb wire fences / Briar bushes, thorns
    Bridge supports and weight distribution / Elephant / Dinosaur skeletal framework
    Robots / Humans
    Nuclear energy or bomb (fusion) / Lamp / Sun
    Electric and propulsion motors / Mechanical components of flagellum of bacteria & protozoan

    Theme Parks / Nature / State Parks
    Helicopter / Bumblebee / Hummingbird / Maple seed pods
    Camouflage clothing / Camouflage skin and fur, chameleons
    Armor / Exoskeletons
    Movies, cast, film crew, director / Life, people, angels, subconscious
    Night lights / street lights / The stars and the moon
    Baby formula / Breast milk
    Water filtration techniques / Same filtering techniques as found in nature and swamps and rivers – charcoal, silt

    Fishing / Angler fish
    Sponge (synthetic) / Sponge
    Satellite / Moon
    Cloning experiments / Reproductive systems, asexual reproduction
    Pulleys, fulcrums, and levers / Foot joints and ligaments
    Smoke detectors / Noses
    Cup / Cupped hands
    Greenhouse / Earth
    Clock / Solar system
    Fishing net / Spider’s web
    Magnifying glass / Droplet of water
    Water filter / Kidneys
    Irrigation canals / Roots in plants
    Fires set to aid heath in agriculture / Naturally occurring forest fires
    Protective environmental suit / Egg shell
    Key and lock / Enzyme and related substrate
    Suspension bridge / Spider web
    Shock absorbing helmet / Woodpecker skull
    Fix-a-flat for punctures in tires / Coagulants found in the blood
    Smoke screen as a defense / Octopus ink
    Fuel & air for mechanical engines / Food & air for biological engines
    Chemical warfare / The Bombardier Beetle
    Snowshoes / Penguin’s feet
    Frames of Buildings / Skeleton of living organisms
    Weaving in a basket / Weaving in a bird’s nest
    Medicine / Herbs
    Religions with rules about God / A relationship of love with God
    Evolution of civilization and technology / Evolution of the universe and life
    Beaver dams / Water dams
    Dreams / Movies
    Circular appearance of sun and moon / Wheel
    Pliers, tongs / Lobster/crab claws
    Fur coats / Fur coats
    Hang gliders / Butterflies
    Vitamin pills / Fruits and vegetables
    Interlocking teeth of a zipper / Linkages between barbs in feathers
    Radiator, heat exchange system / Elephant’s ears, blood vessels in a whale’s tail

    We invent nothing / We simply rediscover!

  608. #609 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    science is a community, you jackass!! how about you offer us some science since YOU are the only one Making Supid claims Teno! Science isn’t reinvented for each person to submit their paper you idiot, especially since the whole notion of PEER-REVIEW (something you have never tried your luck at, and never will!) is based on said community!
    Why do we all have to witness something for it to be real; we aren’t all lying son’s of bitches that are trying to cram our troll crap down everyone else’s throat, like you?! do you not understand that reality is more expansive than that very, very narrow tunnel of your vision (which, i might add, is clouded with all sorts of delusions of angels and demons, & of course tainted with your horrible bias against any form of intellectual discussion)?

  609. #610 Owlmirror
    November 16, 2008

    Please point out to me where any of you thoroughly discussed in full length anything remotely scientific except for pure 100% royal rhetoric in all of these nearly 600 posts?

    Please point out anything you have written that is remotely scientific in the 100% false rhetoric of your E-Z list of lies?

    All you have done is cited others work

    And you have done nothing but lie repeatedly.

  610. #611 Teno Groppi
    November 16, 2008

    tresmal,

    I’ve pointed out quite a lengthy segment many posts above. I wont repeat all of them, but the later one being amino acids.

  611. #612 WithoutSol
    November 16, 2008

    Teno,

    Thank you for this opportunity to waste your time and energy. We all appreciate it. Laughter is the best medicine and you sir, have provided much.

    — Withoutsol

    P.S. “Satellite/Moon” correction: Moon=satellite

  612. #613 Owlmirror
    November 16, 2008

    Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?

    First we need to ask the question, when will you stop lying?

  613. #614 John Morales
    November 16, 2008

    Creobot troll cut’n’paste – the acme of the art.

  614. #615 Owlmirror
    November 16, 2008

    I’ve pointed out quite a lengthy segment many posts above. I wont repeat all of them, but the later one being amino acids.

    Lies don’t count as science.

  615. #616 tresmal
    November 16, 2008

    Teno @610:”I wont repeat all of them, but the later one being amino acids.”
    1) You mean the bit about water “decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?” That’s gibberish.
    2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.

  616. #617 Kel
    November 16, 2008

    This forum is officially a fossilized wash rag. It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability.

    No, it just lacks respect for anyone who thinks their ignorance trumps centuries of accumulated knowledge.

  617. #618 John Morales
    November 16, 2008

    Sheesh, I thought Randy Stimpson was fatuous, but at least he had enough intellect to post his own claims, mostly. This creobot can’t even manage that much

    Can it get lower than to cut’n’paste from someone who’s also cut’n’pasted from ? Watch it try mightily, exercising it’s l33t.

  618. #619 llewelly
    November 16, 2008

    Teno Groppi:

    Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?

    Obviously the overwhelming majority of human inventions were inspired by natural phenomena. However – all efforts to explain natural phenomena by resorting to a super powerful intelligent creator – ‘god’ – have failed egregiously. Efforts to explain natural phenomena by processes neither intelligent nor all-powerful have succeeded remarkably well. There is no good reason to believe any of the natural phenomena you have named were ‘created by god’.

  619. #620 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    wow, your list is sooo full of errors, i’ll just have to settle for a few:
    The sun is FISSION, not fusion. music as birds sing comes nowhere near the music that was created by humans. Robots/humans is very laughable, because they are not even close to the same at this point in time. Theme Parks- wow, have YOU seen a living rollercoaster? where?! Fishing predates the Angler fish because the Angler wasn’t discovered until far later you nimrod! Butterflies don’t glide either, eagles glide.
    You are against evolution, and yet here you stated that evolution of society is analgous to the evolution of the universe and life! most, if not all of these inventions work far better than thier natural counterparts, and it is the improvements that man has made upon nature that constitutes invention. non- sequiter’s all over the place!

  620. #621 abb3w
    November 16, 2008

    Teno Groppi: Please point out to me where any of you thoroughly discussed in full length anything remotely scientific

    Full length? Intro statistical mechanics and thermodynamics usually takes a textbook or three, and you want it in a blog post? You must be joking. You’re getting pointed to relatively lay-readable technical literature with answers to the semi-coherent points you’re trying to bring up. If you don’t understand the material, feel free to say so and ask for elaboration on specific points.

    Teno Groppi: All you have done is cited others work

    “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”

    Answers don’t have to be original, they merely need to be correct. Most of my foundational approach is ganked off of Godel, Turing, and Chomsky.

    Would you agree with the Commutativity of Logical Inclusive Disjunction, which states that (P OR Q) is logically equivalent to (Q OR P)?

    Teno Groppi: Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?

    Most of what I’ve been pointing to is stuff dabbled with in my physics, chemistry, and bio labs in late high school and early college… although the cutting edge stuff is a bit more complicated and uses heavier-duty math.

    There’s also some implicit assumptions about the nature of first-hand knowledge in that remark, but there’s not much of a point to addressing them. You seem to fail to recognize that it is not sufficient to attack an hypothesis; you must provide a “better” alternative. (You also don’t seem to understand the formal definition of “better”, either.)

  621. #622 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 16, 2008

    Pretty soon they are going to be telling us that since we evolved from our closest ancestor the ape and as a means of this evolutionary step from animal to man many RAPES (uncontested sex) occurred. Therefore in the naturalistic world the rape of a woman is seem as something acceptable. Can you imagine the far reaching power of this indoctrination of evolutionistic ideas.

    You people are ignorant and DANGEROUS!

    Teno, you best hang on to your believe in god and satan. It seems that only the threat of eternal pain is supplying your “morals”. I would hate for you to see yourself as merely an ape and decide that you must start raping and murdering.

    You are no longer amusing. You are just a scared and stupid husk of a human. Please continue on with your insults. It takes up your time, keeping you from doing much worse things.

    Engage Killfile.

  622. #623 abb3w
    November 16, 2008

    Teno Groppi: Firstly we need to ask the question if it is truly our invention or Gods creation?

    Requires assumption of the conclusion (divine creation).

    Also, as to argument from design:
    Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla’s book “The Evolution of Technology” for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or “agency” in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, NO COOKIE!

    Pardon the cut-and-paste, but it isn’t worth more effort.

  623. #624 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    When the Dungeon Master is away, the trolls will play.

  624. #625 John Morales
    November 16, 2008

    Um, RickrOll, the Sun mainly fuses hydrogen into helium, and a bit more besides.

    But yeah, the list is spurious (television = ?) in nature.

  625. #626 Feynmaniac
    November 16, 2008

    You people need to get a life and escape out of the realm of satans control. You know, I veagly remember one of Hitlers tactics of control….. The same idea of evolutionist thinking seem to be very prevelent here and working in the fields of science.

    HOLY SHIT !!! This is guy is totally batshit insane!!

  626. #627 Owlmirror
    November 16, 2008

    Pardon the cut-and-paste, but it isn’t worth more effort.

    And you’re still expending more intellectual effort than Teno the Liar is.

  627. #628 llewelly
    November 16, 2008

    Teno Groppi, as a minor point, many of your ‘human invention’/’natural phenomena’ examples are wildly ahistorical. For example – computer programs were devised in Britain in about 1843, by Ada Byron King, countess of Lovelace, and based on rigorous instructions on how to carry out mathematical operations – ‘algorithms’, of which the earliest recorded examples go back to the work of Eratosthenes in about 200 BC. There was no suspicion that life needed an ‘encoding’ of any kind until the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. Even then, neither Darwin nor any of his contemporaries had any notion life needed any equivalent of encoding for algorithms – instead, the mention in Origin focused on a key weakness of Darwin’s theory, the fact that it required heredity to be discrete, and it was not known at that time whether heredity was indeed discrete. The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel’s work (in the 1910s, I think) showed heredity to be discrete, thus validating Darwin’s theory, but still no explicit recognition of a need to encode instructions for development of organisms was forthcoming for many years. The recognition that the encoding of inherited traits in DNA was in many ways similar to computer programs (the principal difference being that computer programs also serve as communication between programmers) did not occur until sometime in the late 1950s – after the discovery of DNA’s structure in 1957.

    Computer programs, instead, were inspired by the ability of the humans – and many other animals – to follow instructions, and to communicate instructions to other thinking beings (something DNA does not do).

  628. #629 Bronze Dog
    November 16, 2008

    Once you lose your temper, you’ve lost the argument.

    I’ve heard that one before.

    All you have done is cited others work – like parrots, along with bowing down to the holy scientific textbook (that you hold so dear to you). Who among you has worked in a laboratory to see and witness these things for yourself firsthand?

    And I’ve heard that one before from a troll my group liked to refer to as “Cocksnack,” especially when he started changing names more and more often, desperately trying to run from his old identity.

    Dipping pretty far into absolute relativism/subjectivism/solipsism there aren’t, you Teno? Or should I call you Deepak Chopra? Sorry, but objective, repeatable experiments are good no matter who does them. If it were any other way, they wouldn’t be repeatable… Unless you’re proposing a conspiracy of millions who never slip up in the coverup.

    Sorry, Teno, but truth isn’t relative to who says it, either. If someone conducted an experiment, the data is true, even if the guy who talks about it didn’t perform it himself.

    Oh, and I’ve run a few evolutionary programs myself that Creationists say should fail. They suggest the programs cheat, but are unwilling to point out where they fail. Either that, or they concede defeat on evolution, effectively changing their argument to saying the environment, not the life is designed. And then they conveniently forget by the next thread that rolls around.

  629. #630 llewelly
    November 16, 2008

    Teno Groppi:

    Nuclear energy or bomb (fusion) / Lamp / Sun

    RickrOll :

    The sun is FISSION, not fusion …

    Although Teno’s list is indeed full of errors, the Sun is powered by fusion, not fission. It’s primarily fusion of four Hyrdrogen atoms into one Helium, rather than the tritium-deuterium fusion used in nuclear fusion weapons, but it’s fusion. Why ‘Lamp’ is in the middle, when nearly all lamps are either chemical or electromagnetic, I don’t know …

  630. #631 Rey Fox
    November 16, 2008

    “It lacks narrative, friendliness, good character, believability, and frankly, to any further extent, watchability. ”

    Hey, you were the one who insulted our nasal hair.

  631. #632 Kel
    November 16, 2008

    Human inventions paralleling nature? I would have never guessed. Who’d have thought that what we do would be limited by the confines of our reality?

  632. #633 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    they use fusion for bombs too huh? yeah i know guys. i was opperating under the knowledge that nukes were fission, and that the sun was the opposite. i can’t believe i made such a rookie error like that. flustered by the troll.

    John, not just the tv, the fridge, the screw, the simulation (and therefore “false simulations” like stories and video games), the laser, mathmatics, and the internet surely didn’t exist in nature, as animals do not have “external memory devices.” Which brings me to my final point: written language, which he hasn’t seem to have mastered vey well. with out this, none of this BS he found would even exist!

    Rey: thanks for the much needed humor!

  633. #634 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    they use fusion for bombs too huh? yeah i know guys. i was opperating under the knowledge that nukes were fission, and that the sun was the opposite. i can’t believe i made such a rookie error like that. flustered by the troll.

    John, not just the tv, the fridge, the screw, the simulation (and therefore “false simulations” like stories and video games), the laser, mathmatics, and the internet surely didn’t exist in nature, as animals do not have “external memory devices.” Which brings me to my final point: written language, which he hasn’t seem to have mastered vey well. with out this, none of this BS he found would even exist!

    Rey: thanks for the much needed humor!

  634. #635 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    sorry about the double post, it was telling me i had too many comments, but i guess it let it through anyway.

  635. #636 John Morales
    November 16, 2008

    llewelly @629, I linked to the stellar nucleosynthesis page rather than the Sun page as an obscure bow to Carl Sagan’s “[humanity is] star stuff contemplating star stuff”, with his silly smile as he beatifically contemplated the numinous and extolled the wonders of science.

  636. #637 John Morales
    November 16, 2008

    … which I note is on YouTube.

  637. #638 Wowbagger
    November 16, 2008

    Teno Groppi, #607

    Your claim that the analogues for human inventions which exist in nature were your alleged god’s design might have a chance of being worthy of discussion if said alleged god had ever explained such mystifying concepts to the people of the time.

    But he didn’t. The bible contains nothing more advanced than what was known by the people at the time it was written. If there was even one prediction of suitably advanced technology which would one day come to pass then we’d know it really did come from god.

    Why do you think that is? He was dead-keen on making sure we knew exactly how to sacrifice things; what not to eat, or wear, or do on the sabbath; who to stone, to kill, to ethnically cleanse. How come he didn’t mention better building methods? Or medicine? Or simple health practices like washing one’s hands?

    Inquiring minds wish to know.

  638. #639 Nerd of Redhead
    November 16, 2008

    I get a nights sleep, and poor Teno has not once presented either any evidence for his alleged god, or scientific citations to back up his inane theory. Just a huge amount of cut/paste like one would expect from a monkey. Teno, at some time you will have to present evidence to back up your statements. If you can’t do that, stay home.

  639. #640 Kel
    November 16, 2008

    It seems Teno’s real message is “My ignorance is worth more than the centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge”

  640. #641 RickrOll
    November 16, 2008

    it seems that as soon as Bronze Dog threw out the name Deepak Chopra, our troll was frightend off. very interesting…

  641. #642 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Well it looks like the forum has fallen silent without me, GASP!

    Deepak Chopra! No he’s too much of a cultist spiritualist for me.

    Alright, lets play tiddlywinks again,

    Hydrolysis — Splitting a Protein: Proteins are broken down by an enzyme called protease that is secreted by fermentative bacteria. This enzyme separates proteins (polypeptides) into amino acids (peptides). It accomplishes this depolymerization through a process known as HYDROLYSIS. In hydrolysis, a WATER MOLECULE is inserted between the two amino acids that are bonded together. THIS BREAKS THE BOND between them by capping the free reactive ends with the H and the OH. The protein,therefore, is BROKEN DOWN from long chains into its individual molecules, amino acids.

  642. #643 Sven DiMilo
    November 17, 2008

    All kinds of digestive/catabolic enzymes break bonds by hydrolysis. Your POINT?

  643. #644 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, still no cited scientific literature, which means you are still spewing nonsense. Time to get with the program and either supply the necessary evidence by citing the scietific literature, or just going away in defeat.

    You cannot convince us with rhetoric. Show us the evidence from legitamate sources in the scientific literature. If you can’t show the evidence, then go away.

  644. #645 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Your friend here “tresmal” said: You mean the bit about water “decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?” That’s gibberish. 2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.

    Water hydrolysis and amino acids have everything to do with creation. How did the left-handed signature in all live come about?

    Now be careful when you cite “theories” since science still has no tangible evidence for how “life came about”.

  645. #646 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, Om
    November 17, 2008

    Alright, lets play tiddlywinks again,

    Hydrolysis — Splitting a Protein: Proteins are broken down by an enzyme called protease that is secreted by fermentative bacteria. This enzyme separates proteins (polypeptides) into amino acids (peptides). It accomplishes this depolymerization through a process known as HYDROLYSIS. In hydrolysis, a WATER MOLECULE is inserted between the two amino acids that are bonded together. THIS BREAKS THE BOND between them by capping the free reactive ends with the H and the OH. The protein,therefore, is BROKEN DOWN from long chains into its individual molecules, amino acids.

    …………………..sorry I was waiting to see the point of that.

    Do you have a point?

  646. #647 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead, before you start flaring off again, I’m sure you are welly informed about the Miller experiment.

  647. #648 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Rev, Teno has no point since he has present no evidence, like a citation from the scientific literature, to back up his less than insipid logic.

    Teno, either cite the scientific literature to prove ID, or acknowledge you have no evidence for your unscientific ideas. Put up or shut up.

  648. #649 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Let me rephrase this again for the belligerent,

    Your friend here “tresmal” said: You mean the bit about water “decompos(ing) the molecules of amino acid bonds?” That’s gibberish. 2) Once again: arguments against evolution are not arguments for creation.

    My POINT is: Water hydrolysis and amino acids have everything to do with creation. HOW DID THE LEFT-HANDED SIGNATURE IN ALL LIVE COME ABOUT?

    And again, be careful when you cite “theories” since science still has no tangible evidence for how “life came about”.

  649. #650 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, you still don’t have a point. State your thesis clearly, and then cite the scientific literature to show proof positive for your ideas.

    You make the same mistake every creationist does. Alleging proof negative against evolution does not prove your ideas at all. And, since you have no scientific proof, there is no dings at the end of the day to evolution.

  650. #651 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, you need to clarify, are you arguing against abiogenesis, or evolution? They are two different things.

    So pick one or the other, but quit trying to confuse the issue by switching back and forth between the two subjects.

  651. #652 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    The Miller-Urey Experiment is still yielding new results, fifty years later.

  652. #653 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM
    November 17, 2008

    My POINT is: Water hydrolysis and amino acids have everything to do with creation. HOW DID THE LEFT-HANDED SIGNATURE IN ALL LIVE COME ABOUT?

    Clearly English isn’t your primary language and all caps doesn’t make your point any clearer but let me try.

    WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

  653. #654 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

    Yes Miller had achieved AMINO ACIDS, but what he did not achieve (as well as any ongoing experimentation today) was/is the complete “left-handed” amino acids which is the essential signature found in all living things.

    I’m not looking for theories or hypotheses here, I’m looking for EVIDENCE in any scientific testing.

    Can you goons find any?

    Well then, put up or shut up as Redhead always says!

  654. #655 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, please posit your reason that most amino acids are L and most sugars are D, by starting with your premise and citing the appropriate scientific liteature to back up your claims. For example, if claim goddidit, you no show physical proof for god. If you are trying the old comet theory, show the evidence that the amino acids in comets are not racemic. Your evidence please.

  655. #656 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, Om
    November 17, 2008

    Teno are you a Jehovah’s Witness by chance?

  656. #657 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Why are we bothering with this cut and paste, capslock creobot? English is not his first language, he’s consigned us all to hell and gone and godwinned himself before he got half a dozen posts out. He’s repetitive; incapable of comprehension. He introduced himself as here at the invitation of somebody calling himself “Clueless.”

    Oh, right, comedy. Carry on.

  657. #658 Timothy Wood
    November 17, 2008

    @263
    haha… er… HAHA.

    I wondered if it was just me… or if that really didn’t make any sense.

    …It’s obvious. Everything has a left handed signature because God is left handed. Because… God has hands. Really, isn’t it enough to ask for him to be omnipotent, without requiring him to be ambidextrous too? No wonder you atheists don’t believe. You just ask too much.

  658. #659 Sven DiMilo
    November 17, 2008

    HOW DID THE LEFT-HANDED SIGNATURE IN ALL LIVE COME ABOUT?

    Our correspondent is referring to the chirality of amino acids–they can be synthesized in either “left-handed” or “right-handed” enantiomers. Proteins in living thing contain almost all left-handed enantiomers. Nobody knows why (a few ideas can be found starting here).

    So what?

  659. #660 Timothy Wood
    November 17, 2008

    *253

  660. #661 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM
    November 17, 2008

    Well Timothy I actually understand the left handed Amino acid thing, it was more that he hasn’t made a fucking coherent point coupled with the typical creationist lack of understanding what a theory is..

  661. #662 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    You are the experts here, you should know this stuff. If you think I’m going to sit at my computer all day and look scientific data up, you are dismally wrong. I have enough backed up knowledge to defend the amino acid premise. Its your jobs here to prove me wrong.

    And in this I will tell you that both a combination of (L) and (D) amino acids are symbolic of things that were once alive and are now in the process of dying (decomposing).

    What Miller had discovered (in his combination broth of many amino acids) was not any sort of life, but the signature of death.

  662. #663 Patricia
    November 17, 2008

    Interesting, the troll Currrious invites the troll Teno to PZ’s blog to observe people being deluded by satan. Thats cute.

  663. #664 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    What Miller had discovered (in his combination broth of many amino acids) was not any sort of life, but the signature of death.

    Does Death sign his paychecks left-handed or right-handed, and what’s the going rate on sin these days?

  664. #665 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, you not much of what you speak of. The prefered degradation of D-leucine from a racemic mixture by radioactivity has been demonstrated. (Noyes, H. Pierre; Bonner, William A.; and Tomlin, J. A. (1977), “On the origin of biological chirality via natural beta-decay” (Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Volume 8, Number 1 / April, 1977)) It only takes a small preference to create chiral induction, where you end up with only on prefered enantiomer.

  665. #666 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    S, DiMilo,

    Quoted from you: Our correspondent is referring to the chirality of amino acids–they can be synthesized in either “left-handed” or “right-handed” enantiomers. Proteins in living thing contain almost all left-handed enantiomers. Nobody knows why (a few ideas can be found starting here).
    So what?

    Look, firstly you said it yourself these are only IDEAS. And then you say, SO WHAT!

    SO WHAT, don’t you have any sort of logically thinking hearsay to the opposition of evolution? You say it is the creationist who is illogical and refused to open their minds to the possibility of evolutionary precepts.

    Still, I would like to know WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE MY GOOD FRIEND? I suppose the evidence for the left-handed amino acid signature in all life fits into the same category as transitional (intermediate) forms. (where are they?)

  666. #667 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 17, 2008

    You are the experts here, you should know this stuff. If you think I’m going to sit at my computer all day and look scientific data up, you are dismally wrong.

    The point here Teno is that whether Miller Urey fails to be ultimately successful or not is not any form of support for ID or creationism.

    If you can’t grasp such a simple concept then how are you going to handle the more complex stuff?

  667. #668 Nick Gotts
    November 17, 2008

    If you think I’m going to sit at my computer all day and look scientific data up, you are dismally wrong. – Teno Groppi

    Relax, Groppi, no-one here is under the illusion that you have either the faintest interest in scientific data, or even the most rudimentary capacity to understand them. You’ve made that abundantly clear.

    A question for you: don’t you get tired of repeating the same ignorant distortions again and again and again? Can’t you at least think of some new ones?

  668. #669 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, you argument has been disproved. What next?

  669. #670 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Can’t you at least think of some new ones?

    I haven’t found any evidence of originality in the list of distortions Groppi has used for years, except perhaps, in the specific phrasing.

    His routine of arrogantly ignorant head-spinning and bile-spewing, with the bedpost-levitating and epithet-hurling is mildly entertaining. Wildly unoriginal, but deserving of at least a coupla style points.

  670. #671 Sven DiMilo
    November 17, 2008

    The evidence for biological evolution is vast, including direct empirical observation, strong inference from comparative biochemistry, morphology, behavior, and development, pretty much open-snd-shut inference from comparative genomics, inference from biogeography, and–yes–the existence of numerous “transitional” forms in the fossil record.
    The question of why biological enzymes sythesize only left-handed amino acids (with exceptions) bears not at all on any of this evidence. It’s a fascinating question, to be sure, and AFAIK nobody knows the reason, but that’s mainly because we’re talking about events that occurred almost 4 billion years ago that left no (yet identified) physical evidence. Of course it’s a question dominated by speculation. So what?
    What’s your explanation? God played eenie-meenie-miney-moe?

    What you’re not providing, see, is the logical link between “almost all amino acids are left-handed” and “evolution can’t be true.” There’s a lot missing in there.

  671. #672 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    (where are they?)

    I’m looking at Homo creotardus right now. (And, yeah, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, calling you a homo.)

    Also, make more 2nd Law arguments. Much funnier.

  672. #673 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead,

    Homochirality!

    You are drawing at strings now. This is still lacking! Again its only a plausible hypothesis.

    The Beta-dacay electrons does not explain the process of biological molecules. These are two similar but separate entities. Moreover, we don’t catch this happening in living things.

  673. #674 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, now its your turn to prove something. Trot out your scientific proof by citing the literature like I did.

    Now, do you, or do you not have an argument with proof?

  674. #675 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    What all of this does indeed show, such as in the Miller experiment as well as all theories pertaining to evolution is that no matter how hard we continue to try, science cannot create something from nothing. Everything that science is working with has already been created. Bacteria comes from bacteria.

    Evolutionists still cannot get past the idea of what came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Evolutionists believe that the very same processes that have been observed only to cause decay, death, and destruction caused NOTHING to create something, and the something to make itself come alive and then to evolve into more complex creatures culminating with man.

    WHAT GREAT FAITH!

  675. #676 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Shorter Groppi:

    SCIENCE DOESN’T KNOW EVERYTHING THEREFORE MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY DID IT YOU’RE ALL GOING TO HELL! 11!

  676. #677 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    Haha.

    How old is the earth Teno?

  677. #678 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, please show us your great idea. Make sure to include the literature citations to back up your idea. That is the only way to show how great you are.

    However, if you keep doing the same stupid things over and over, we have your number. Scientificly illiterate troll.

  678. #679 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    CJO in #672, looks like you got your 2nd law arguments served up promptly in #675. They keep getting funnier every time I hear ‘em.

  679. #680 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM
    November 17, 2008

    What all of this does indeed show, such as in the Miller experiment as well as all theories pertaining to evolution is that no matter how hard we continue to try, science cannot create something from nothing.

    yawn.

    Your entire argument boils down to the classic god of the gaps argumentum ad ignorantiam.

  680. #681 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    For pete sake Redhead, it says it right in the cited material itself.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu801259101p3725/

  681. #682 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    The dumbass spoketh; Evolutionists still cannot get past the idea of what came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Please point out where people are stumped by this “conundrum”. Fossilized eggs have been found that predate the chicken by many millions of years.

    Just because you are ether stupid or ignorant (or both) does not mean that the people you disagree with are.

  682. #683 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, time to lay out your great theory for us to bask in your greatness. Just be sure to include the proper citations to the scientific literature. We are not the ones who should be defending our claims. Let’s see yours. Quit hiding them. Or are you too scared to show them?

    Better yet, put all your arguemnts together a nice scientific paper and submit it to an appropriate refereed journal for publication. That way you can win a Nobel prize by upsetting the science establishment. Nothing stopping you, unless you know you have nothing but rhetoric.

  683. #684 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    They don’t come any stupider than you Janine! It kind of reminds me of what I’m dealing with – the whole bunch.

  684. #685 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    They don’t come any stupider than you Janine!

    Now there’s a charm offensive.

    My three-year-old in screaming shrieking tantrum mode is more appealing than this FCCwit.

    Cork your piehole, Groppi. You win this round of “People Who Need to be Thinned From the Herd.”

  685. #686 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    Teno.

    How old is the earth???

  686. #687 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Dumbass, please explain why you think people who know that evolution is true are stumped the the chicken and the egg question? Evidence please?

    Funny how you are avoiding Nerd’s reasonable request. Methinks you are in over your head.

    I take great pride in having moral idiots calling me “stupid”. After all, you are the slimy shit who believes that the threat of eternal punishment is what keeps you from raping.

    Please call “stupid” again. It makes me laugh, you husk of a human.

  687. #688 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    You keep asking for the scientific literature Redhead, and I am only supplying you with what you had supplied me with.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu801259101p3725/

    You claimed that this scientific article/experiment was proof of the origin of left-handed amino acids. What you threw at me (obviously because you neglected to either read or understand it properly)is that it clearly states in there the “difference” between Beta-dacay electrons and biological molecules.

    And this was your argument for some kind of proof of the emergence of left-handed amino acids? Right, when Bigfoot reveals himself.

  688. #689 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, I’ve stopped playing the game you keep trying to play, and I have moved on to make Teno prove his ideas. Now, time for you to prove your ideas. Lay them out, show the proper scientic backing, and we might even applaud. But then, we both know you have nothing except goddidit, which means you have to prove god first. We are waiting.

  689. #690 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Steve_C,

    Teno. How old is the earth???

    Lets stick to the topic of amino acids right now. Because your question opens up another heated debate.

    How on earth do you people expect to learn anything new from what you were taught if you don’t have the decency to think outside of the box? I have learned “both sides” of the story and am thankful I was privy to such.

  690. #691 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    You all misunderstand the dumbass. He merely wants to teach both sides of the controversy.

  691. #692 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Groppi, Steve_C asked you a simple question. Maybe if you can take a break from your rolling online Tourette’s fit long enough to listen quietly for one of the voices in your head, Mother Mary will whisper an answer you can share with the rest of us. How old is the earth? Did goB poof it into existence 4BYA? 10KYA? 6KYA? Last Thursday? How do you know? With what will you support your claim?

  692. #693 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Lets stick to the topic of amino acids right now. Because your question opens up another heated debate.

    No, you’ve shown you’ve got nothing intelligent to say on that topic. Cut your losses, move on. How old is the earth, FCCwit?\

    He merely wants to teach both sides of the controversy.

    Everything Groppi knows about science he learned from Paul Harvey.

  693. #694 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead,

    You the accuser and now accusing the accused even after I had supplied and exposed your own cited material smack-back in the face of LACKING the distinct difference between Beta-dacay electrons and biological molecules.

    The cited material that you cited plainly says what it says. You trying to use it against me(for something its not) is flying in the face of not smelling your own bad breath.

    This is the biggest cop-out I’ve ever heard. You are the one who is hiding behind your own little misunderstanding of amino acids.

    Sorry to rain on your pride Redhead especially with all your little cronies blindly following behind you.

  694. #695 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM
    November 17, 2008

    Lets stick to the topic of amino acids right now. Because your question opens up another heated debate.

    Um no. Not heated.

  695. #696 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    He merely wants to teach both sides of the controversy.

    No, he only knows one side, and is stuck on the falacious idea that by disproving abiogenesis he proves ID. The major point he misses is that disproving abiogenesis does nothing for proof positive for his ideas. He’s just a stuck in the rut IDiot.

  696. #697 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Groppi:
    The cited material that you cited plainly says what it says.

    Why, so it does:

    Experimental evidence that longitudinally polarized electrons having the handedness characteristic of terrestrial beta-decay electrons preferentially remove D-leucine from a racemic mixture, coupled with the probable presence of14C in pre-biotic molecules, offers a plausible hypothesis for the origin of biomolecular handedness.

    We already knew you were incapable of parsing an abstract.

    How old is the earth, FCCwit?

  697. #698 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    I’ll get to how old the earth is soon enough, its almost like your trying to revert the conversation away from Redheads flub-up on amino acids.

  698. #699 Sven DiMilo
    November 17, 2008

    Dude. nobody knows the reason for the amino-acid thing. There is a good possibility that it’s unknowable.
    So what?
    I repeat, yet again: so what?

  699. #700 phantomreader42
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, since you’ve started polluting this thred with your bullshit, upwards of 99% of what you’ve said, if not ALL of it, has been obvious, blatant lies. Now, isn’t your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?

    I see creationists lie all the time, and not once have I seen one express the slightest remorse, nor any willingness to abandon rhetoric that has been shown to be false. Why is that? You make blatantly false attacks on other people’s morals, but you yourself are an unrepentant liar, which is universally regarded as immoral, in fact it’s supposedly one of the big ten DON’Ts your imaginary god wrote in stone.

    Of course, you’re a creationist, so the truth is your mortal enemy, your delusions demand that you ignore the facts and make shit up at every opportunity. You think your imaginary friend will give you a free pass on bearing false witness, because you’re doing it to prop up your pitifully weak faith.

    You are nothing more than a willfully ignorant lying sociopath. If you had the slightest speck of evidence to back up ANYTHING you’ve said, you would have posted it by now. You haven’t. You haven’t even tried. You’ve got nothing, and on some level you know it. You’re a fraud. You keep repeating idiotic arguments debunked decades ago. And you will never have anything to say worth listening to. Just the same bullshit lies creationists have been worshipping for centuries.

  700. #701 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM
    November 17, 2008

    One more time

    God of the gaps.

    That’s all you’ve got Teno.

  701. #702 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Rev is right Teno. And god doesn’t exist, so you have no argument whatsoever.

  702. #703 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/creation/cedebate.html

    http://www.blogger.com/profile/5645637

    If this is the same Teno… WOW. What a religious fuckbot.

    Dude, you’re pretty scary.

  703. #704 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    I’ll get to how old the earth is soon enough, its almost like your trying to revert the conversation away from Redheads flub-up on amino acids.

    What flub-up, liar?

  704. #705 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    http://www.genesisevidence.org/

    hehehe… this is too good.

  705. #706 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Why sure it clearly says that, but it also clearly tells us that it is Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules.

    Hmmm last time I checked, these are two distincly differenct things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesnt prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means. And it was Redhead who claimed they did.

    How much longer to you want to keep rolling with this? I’ve got all day here. Somebody needs to concede here so I can move onto the next question on the age of the earth.

  706. #707 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    Hehe. Wow. You’re really full of yourself. Coming from the founder of the Genesis Evidence Ministry.

    No god. No creation. No concessions.

  707. #708 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM
    November 17, 2008

    How much longer to you want to keep rolling with this?

    How much longer are you going to continue with your argumentum ad ignorantiam?

  708. #709 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    I’ve got all day here. Somebody needs to concede here so I can move onto the next question on the age of the earth.

    If you’ve got all day then we can table the chirality issue. You haven’t made any sort of case for its relevance to the larger question anyway, you’re just picking on a perceived gap in abiogenesis models (that you’ve shown no interest in trying to understand) without making even the semblance of an argument as to why we should care.

  709. #710 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Teno “The Wisconsin Marriage Defender” Groppi

    For example, if you believe in evolution, you eventually have to allow for “Spontaneous Generation” which has been proven by EMPIRICAL and TESTABLE SCIENCE to be a greater folly than Mohammar Khaddafi declaring war on the U.S.!

    In plain language, to believe in evolution, that all life had a common ancestor, and that life formed from non-life, you MUST believe that YOU came from a ROCK! You gotta have ROCKS in your head to believe that! Must be STONED!

    Thank you, Steve C. I get a bad case of the giggles when someone like this calls me stupid.

  710. #711 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Thank you Steve for those links!

  711. #712 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    All the better to laugh at you, dumbass.

  712. #713 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    We’ll be here for the duration. (And PZ gets paid by the post, and we need to help pay his daughter’s tuition.)

    Be sure to tip your waitresses.

  713. #714 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    Why sure it clearly says that, but it also clearly tells us that it is Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules.

    Did you understand anything in the abstract at all?

    Hmmm last time I checked, these are two distincly differenct things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesnt prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means.

    Do you even understand how probabilities relate to evidence?

    If you toss a die 1,000 times, and the number 6 comes up 5/6th of the time instead of 1/6th, is that not evidence that the die is loaded?

    The paper shows that the combination of chemical elements can be “loaded” to come up in favor of L-amino-acids.

    You liar.

  714. #715 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Waiting on little Redridinghood to concede. I’m sure you’d all love to know how old the earth really is.

  715. #716 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Teno. You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. Whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back.

    Yes, I am still laughing.

  716. #717 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    Teno. You’re our favorite kind of creobot.

    The Deluded Minister.

    I posted your links because I know everyone will get a huge laugh from them.

    Hey everyone, even better, he voted for RON PAUL! Hahahaha.

  717. #718 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    I’m sure you’d all love to know how old the earth really is.

    We know just fine. Your stalling tactic is pathetic. I would have thought no way you could come off as more of a loser than your opening salvo showed you to be, but you’ve proved one thing anyway. I concede that your ability to appear delusional is truly prodigious.

  718. #719 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    CJO,

    What is to understand, the cited scientific article plainly states what it does. What is left to talk about it?

    It clearly tells us its about Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules. Again, these are two distinctly different things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesn’t prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means. And it was Redhead who claimed they did.

  719. #720 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    It doesnt prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means.

    Science doesn’t deal in proof, which is reserved for math, logic, and whisky. The abstract advanced no proof, only a hypothesis. You’re ignorance on the difference is just more evidence of your profound ignorance.

    BTW, on the first link from Steve_C, Groppi identifies himself as a YEC. What a surprise.

  720. #721 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Alright, I can be accused of quotemining but it seems that dumbass is afraid of “HOMO-FASCISTS”. Queers are intolerant bigots.

  721. #722 Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM
    November 17, 2008

    It clearly tells us its about Beta-decay electrons verses biological molecules. Again, these are two distinctly different things and they used the experiment only to relate such probabilities. Nothing more. It doesn’t prove one iota that left-handed amino acids arose by these means. And it was Redhead who claimed they did.

    And to the larger question your point is exactly what?

  722. #723 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    What is to understand…?

    I’m not even talking about the cited article, cretin, which you have just latched onto as a stalling tactic. I’m talking about chirality in general, and its irrelevance to the larger issue. Unless you can show that the current uncertainty about the origin of homochirality is somehow an insurmountable problem for either evolutionary theory or current models of abiogenesis, it’s a red herring, and we should move on to ridiculing your denial of the consensus on the age of the earth.

  723. #724 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on “proof”, than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.

    Pick your poison! :D

  724. #725 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Groppi, heed well what Janine said at #716. Therefore, make peace with your god, whatever you conceive him to be – hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin. With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal, the world continues to deteriorate.

    Give up.

  725. #726 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    This lame creobot is running a very predictable script.

    OK FCCwit, if science is identical to faith, when you’re sick, do you consult a doctor or a priest?

  726. #727 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on “proof”, than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.

    Liar.

    Science is based on evidence. You know, the stuff that you don’t have any of?

  727. #728 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.

    It’s called ‘inference,’ moron. Prove the sun will rise tomorrow.

  728. #729 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    I’m sure the Teno believes there was a global flood and that Noah really built an Ark.

    How literal is he????

  729. #730 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 17, 2008

    Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on “proof”, than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.

    Pick your poison! :D

    For someone who came here talking a big game you really don’t understand science one bit do you?

    What is your definition of a scientific theory?

  730. #731 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    This from his header at his T-Rex Soft Tissue blog.

    Soft tissue, blood vessels, and blood cells found inside Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone! It is not millions of years old, probably not even thousands. Dinosaurs lived with man, and were on the ark, just as the Bible indicates.

    Teno, we have no reason to wait for your answer. You have your droppings all over the intertubes.

  731. #732 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Steve C, Teno believes that there were T-Rexes on Noah’s Ark.

  732. #733 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Why certainly CJO it is a red hearing. Not that I’m not seeing the larger issue as you call it, but simply because we DON’T WITNESS HOMOCHIRALITY HAPPENING IN BIOLOGICAL THINGS.

  733. #734 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    Soft tissue, blood vessels, and blood cells found inside Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone! It is not millions of years old, probably not even thousands. Dinosaurs lived with man, and were on the ark, just as the Bible indicates.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire.

  734. #735 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    but simply because we DON’T WITNESS HOMOCHIRALITY HAPPENING IN BIOLOGICAL THINGS.

    Liar and moron.

  735. #736 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    Well as you say Ken that indeed science is not based on “proof”, than its basically in the same catagory as FAITH.

    If all cars are not red, then they are all blue *roll*

    Do you take pleasure in being an intellectual retard?

  736. #737 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    T-Rex was a domestic animal! They used their giant teeth to crack coconuts!

    I bet the AiG Museum is his all time favorite place on God’s Green Earth, well, other than church.

  737. #738 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Thank you for reading the Teno Groppi sites, much appreciated. Maybe it will do you all some good.

    BTW, where is Redhead? Has she conceded or is she diligently looking to dredge up some other kind of cited material?

    Maybe she has come to finally realize that the F-word has no deterrent power over me — just as the rest of you will come to find out.

  738. #739 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, the cited paper is one of a long line showing beta decay is chiral, which means it selectively degrades one enantiomer (D-amino acids and L-sugars). I first read about this in the ’70’s, in one of Asimov’s collection of essays. The source used in the cited paper was carbon 14. Guess what, carbon 14 is produced constantly in the atmosphere, and is present in all recently made organic molecules. You have some in your body.

    I also have a paper, if I felt like digging it out in my OPRD collection, where a totally chiral product was made from a mixture with just 1% excess of chiral catalyst. It doesn’t take much to perturb the system to make one enantiomer if there is a driving force to do so. That whole line of reasoning has been refuted.

    Now lets get to your ideas. Please lay them out with the proper citation of the scientif literature. I won’t be holding my breath, as the first thing you have to do is show the unrefuted physical evidence for god.

  739. #740 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Dino is my dinosaur
    His tail is in the kitchen
    And his head’s out the door

    (I apologize for the obscure reference to an eighties song. I loved The Screaming Blue Messiahs!)

  740. #741 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    A good laugh always does me some good.

    Makes my godless liberal heart swell with glee.

  741. #742 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008

    Thank you for reading the Teno Groppi sites, much appreciated. Maybe it will do you all some good.

    And the self delusion continues.

    Just to let you know, I am a lesbian, you know, a HOMO-FASCIST.

  742. #743 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Hello Redhead, at least thank you for talking civilly this time.

    Yes I am fully away of the carbon issue. However again, we don’t witness homochirality happening in biological things.

    And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.

  743. #744 Wowbagger
    November 17, 2008

    Teno must have watched The Flintstones at some point and thought it was a documentary.

  744. #745 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    However again, we don’t witness homochirality happening in biological things.

    You’re still a liar and a moron.

    And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.

    The sheer amount of dumb in this sentence is breathtaking.

  745. #746 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008

    And even if it did happen once, it would have to have done this many many MANY times to produce all the different living organisms that we see today.

    He does not understand the concept of “common ancestry”. Strike that, he rejects the concept of “common ancestry”.

  746. #747 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    He does not understand the concept of “common ancestry”. Strike that, he rejects the concept of “common ancestry”.

    His common ancestor is dirt.

    In his case, it’s all in his head.

  747. #748 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Additionally,

    Estimates of global species diversity have varied from 2 million to 100 million species, with a best estimate of somewhere near 10 million, and only 1.4 million have actually been named. With new species being discovered every day.

    Then (as your theory goes) it breaks off into common ancestry. And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren’t we witnessing any of this today?

  748. #749 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, we stopped playing your game. Now pony up your ideas and the proof behind them. I especially await the physical evidence for your imaginary god.

  749. #750 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren’t we witnessing any of this today?

    Because you touch yourself at night

  750. #751 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    Then (as your theory goes) it breaks off into common ancestry. And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren’t we witnessing any of this today?

    Because, you lying moron, it happened before all modern species evolved; before single cells became multicellular organisms; before photosynthetic bacteria started adding oxygen to the atmosphere.

    Do you even understand what “common ancestor” means?

  751. #752 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    The dumbass squawks; And one amino acid fluke of left-handedness created all of these? If this is so, why aren’t we witnessing any of this today?

    Could it be that if any arises anywhere, there are billions of microbiobs ready to snack on them.

    Also, please talk to any expert on DNA if you doubt that all known living things are not related, even if the split in the family tree occurs hundred of millions years ago. Strike that, you believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

  752. #753 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    Silly creationist, myths are for kids

  753. #754 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead, proof that your theory of left-handed amino acids FAILS in the evidence of all the million of diversified species that exist in the world today. And now you are falling back on your last piece of straw you can pull out of your hat — proof of God!

    God is no more imaginary then your evolutionary theory.

  754. #755 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    “God is no more imaginary then your evolutionary theory.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c
    Evolution happened, deal with it.

  755. #756 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead, proof that your theory of left-handed amino acids FAILS in the evidence of all the million of diversified species that exist in the world today.,

    Liar.

    God is no more imaginary then your evolutionary theory.

    Then you should be able to prove that, liar.

  756. #757 Patricia
    November 17, 2008

    Kel @ 750 – dammit! There went my ginger ale.

  757. #758 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Again, where are all the transitional (intermediate) forms?

    Mammals (which whales are) give birth HEAD-first (except, of course, partial-birth aborted humans, which are turned backwards on purpose, so their brains can be sucked out before their head is out of the womb. If whales gave birth like mammals should, we wouldn’t worry about having to “save the baby whales”, they’d all drown! It takes too long for a whale to give birth. Wouldn’t you know, whales naturally give birth upside-down! Now how did evolution “know” how to do that? Did it wait until all the babies drowned and then realize that they needed to give breach birth? Too late, they’d be as extinct as the theory of evolution!

  758. #759 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    Now he’s just boring.

  759. #760 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, you seem to be a bit dense, so I will do you a favor; I will explain what is happening now. We are taunting you with French accents. We are passing gas in your general direction. We are bombarding you with barnyard animals.

    Look up!

    We are now dropping an empty replica of a Trojan Bunny on your head.

    You are ignoring evidence. Mockery is all we have for you now.

  760. #761 spurge
    November 17, 2008

    Fetchez la vache!

  761. #762 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, time for you to post your ideas and show their evidence. I have stopped playing the “try to refute the scientist” game because you are so pathetic. So now we will look at your ideas, which you have failed to show.

    So, pony out your ideas for us to refute. Be sure to include your physical proof for your imaginary god somewhere in your garbage that you spew. I eagerly await refuting it.

  762. #763 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Janine, if wit was spit, your mouth would be drier than a shallow well in an African heat wave. :D

    Somebody please tell a decent joke! Please alert me here to “EVIDENCE”?

  763. #764 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Now how did evolution “know” how to do that?

    Evolution knows nothing! Those whale that survived are able to reproduce. Those that did not, died out. Nothing intelligent nor magical about it.

    At least you are being more honest about where you are coming from, tossing in the bit about abortions. I would suggest you find out about breech birth.

  764. #765 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, no trotting out of your ideas? Come on, you had a go us. Turn about is fair play.

  765. #766 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Dumbass, the reason you do not find me witty is because you are a husk of a human with a husk of a brain.

  766. #767 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead, pony up ay?

    Okay — so you want to play horse. I’ll be the front end and you be yourself. :D

  767. #768 Wowbagger
    November 17, 2008

    Teno Groppi,

    Psst, Teno – why not ask them how evolution explains PYGMIES + DWARFS??

  768. #769 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    Good grief.

  769. #770 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Somebody please tell a decent joke!

    I don’t know any decent jokes. We’re hanging around to learn to what depth of madness and stupidity you’ll descend next, while taunting you, and, as Janine said, passing gas in your general direction. Because Janine took a particular liberty with her citation of scripture, the obvious implication is that you should probably take into your calculations the likelihood that some of the gas wafting your way is a result of the occasional malicious queef.

  770. #771 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Janine, evolution knows nothing hey?

    With that said, it can certainly be said — there sits a woman with an open mind. I can feel the draft from here.

    See, I can play this game too! :D

  771. #772 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    evolution knows nothing hey?

    Evolution knows nothing at all and it’s still smarter and more honest than you are.

  772. #773 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Ken, both you and Janine couldn’t ad-lib a fart after a baked-bean dinner.

    This is fun, lets keep it going! :D

  773. #774 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Still afraid to put your ideas out there for refutation? What do we have here. Must be some type mad non-scientist, who thinks everybody must perform for him. Now it’s time for you to show your ideas, and the evidence behind them from the scientific literature. I’m very interested in your physical evidence for your imaginary god.

  774. #775 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    TENO+ARK WAS REAL=FAIL

  775. #776 God
    November 17, 2008

    Was someone talking about Me? My nonexistent ears are burning.

    Sorry, little creationist, evolution is both a theory and a fact. I made your species by a process of directed breeding of intelligent apes, not by a spontaneous act of special creation.

  776. #777 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Redhead (I think pinhead now applies), even if I gave you proof of God, its questionable if whether or not you even have the capability to acknowledge Him. Since an atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman!

  777. #778 Emmet Caulfield
    November 17, 2008

    Ken, both you and Janine couldn’t ad-lib a fart after a baked-bean dinner.

    Apparently, neither can you, since you have to rip-off a well-known John Belushi line.

  778. #779 God
    November 17, 2008

    even if I gave you proof of God, its questionable if whether or not you even have the capability to acknowledge Him.

    You don’t have any proof of Me. Believe Me, I would know.

  779. #780 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, I’m a big boy. I can take real evidence for god. But I can also laugh when the physical evidence, after being examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, is shown to be of natural origin. Score one against god at that point. You have no evidence, and you are aware of that. That is why you keep avoiding presenting anything. So, it’s time for you present your ideas and scientific proof. I have the popcorn ready.

  780. #781 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    Teno lives in a magic fantasy world where Jesus and Mary love him.

    The discussion is starting to feel as cruel and pointless as teasing a developmentally disabled child. If every minute is a special miracle just for Groppi, who am I to try to pry him out of the intellectual cess pit he’s splashing around in?

  781. #782 Katharine
    November 17, 2008

    Also, to further debunk the creotards’ arguments, let me say GENETICS WORKS.

    Can we send the creotards to Saudi Arabia?

  782. #783 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Wowbagger,

    Pygmies and dwarfs come from a process called “natural selection” (this is not evolution of any sort in the creationists view).

    However, it appears that dwarfing has infected your brain not
    microcephaly, but clue deficit disorder of the third kind.

  783. #784 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    Teno show proof that we’re all related to Noah and his family.

  784. #785 Katharine
    November 17, 2008

    The Muslim fundamentalists and the creotards would get along, lol.

    Also:

    http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html

  785. #786 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    It’s just painfully sad to watch stupid people try to be funny isn’t it?

    More lies, please. More 2nd Law arguments. You have to just let it come from the heart, Teno. You can’t force it. Loosen up. Breeeeeaathe.

  786. #787 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Pinhead,

    There is actually more proof for God then you think. The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament not only by God Himself, but from writers ranging from 2,000 – 4,000 years ago. This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.

    It certainly beats an invisible evolutionary theory that was witnessed by the ghost of Elvis.

  787. #788 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    Pygmies and dwarfs come from a process called “natural selection” (this is not evolution of any sort in the creationists view).

    Since creationists are liars, their “view” is false.

  788. #789 Rey Fox
    November 17, 2008

    He’s just afraid of evolution. He’s afraid of not having his big Daddy who loves him. He’s willing to study science to the extent that he can fling some terms around, but when he follows the science towards evolution, he suddenly retreats back to his thousands-of-years-old book of stories.

  789. #790 God
    November 17, 2008

    The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament not only by God Himself,

    Actually, it’s not. Or rather, it’s full of lies. I told some; the human writers told the rest.

    This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.

    Nope, not that either.

  790. #791 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    In #657, I claimed that Teno was here at the invitation of a poster named “Clueless.” Honesty compels me to admit that poor memory, contempt, and a vivid imagination led to that error. In #579 he said he was led here by “Curious,” clearly, the only passing acquaintance he has ever had with any form of curiousity.

  791. #792 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    *shows one line of evidence*
    “What about ?”
    *shows different line of evidence*
    “What about
    ?”
    *shows different line of evidence*
    “What about
    ?”
    *shows different line of evidence*
    “What about
    ?”
    *shows different line of evidence*
    “Nope, didn’t happen. Goddidit 6,000 years ago”

    Genetic evidence shows quite conclusively that we shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Just as it shows we share a common ancestor with all life and certainly all animals. Every piece of evidence points to a gradual emergence of life over billions of years and eventually led to us, just as it did for the millions of other lifeforms that are alive today. There’s not a single thing that shows that the world is 6000 years old and was created by a deity.

    We have galaxies that are 13 billion light years away from us, that means that light from those galaxies left 13 billion years ago and we look 13 billion years back in time when we see them. The earth ages the same as the moon, as meteorites and as the sun; all of which are over 4 billion years old. We don’t see life in the fossil record until 3.5 billion years ago, then complex life around 700 million years ago. We don’t get amphibians until 385 million years ago, don’t get mammals until about 220 million years ago, and no large mammals until 10 million years after the extinction event known as the K-T boundary which happened around 65 million years ago. Indeed we don’t see human-like ancestors until a few million years ago, and we don’t see homosapiens in the fossil record until around 200,000 years ago. Humans and dinosaurs are separated by 64,800,000 years!

    So even if evolution didn’t happen, you still need a mechanism to explain the diversity of life as seen now and in the fossil record. Common ancestry is there in our genetic code, we can see it in the morphology of animals and in the fossil record. If that didn’t come about through a combination of mutation, natural selection and genetic drift in isolated populations, then you need another mechanism that fits in with the facts. Evolution not happening doesn’t stop the universe from being at least 13.7 billion years old, nor does it stop the earth from being 4.5 billion years old. It doesn’t change what the fossil record says about the gradual emergence of life, nor does it change the time scales. So even if evolution is wrong, creationism is by no means right. FSMism is a better fit than creationism because it at least explains the evidence we see.

    In short, creationists are gullible fools who believe the desert scribblings of bronze-age herders over the entire scientific establishment. They have no knowledge whatsoever, and use that ignorance as a selling point of their beliefs. Throughout our society we have a pride in knowing, that we want to see experts discuss ideas. We want athletes who are the best competing, we want economists who know what they are doing (whether such a person exists is another story), we want politicians who are going to lead us, we want domain experts in every possible job out there. But when it comes to science, creationists think their own ignorance trumps people who have dedicated their lives to it all because they have a book that isn’t even consistent with itself telling htem science is wrong.

  792. #793 Rey Fox
    November 17, 2008

    In summary: the everlasting truth of the Bible is proven by some scattered and largely contradictory eyewitness accounts from hundreds of years ago, combined with a few archaeological finds that show that some of the nations mentioned in the Bible really existed. Evolution, meanwhile, has to be proven by having fossils of every transitional species that ever existed, and video footage of a dog evolving into a cat in an amount of time that can fit inside the attention span of the average creationist.

    We’re essentially speaking entirely separate languages here. You might as well try to explain vegetarianism to a dog.

  793. #794 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, no god = no holy scriptures = no theology. QED.

  794. #795 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Posted by: Teno Groppi | November 17, 2008

    It certainly beats an invisible evolutionary theory that was witnessed by the ghost of Elvis.

    This is a new one. I never realized that Elvis Presley had anything to do with the theory of evolution.

    By the way dumbass, the bible is not a primary source.

  795. #796 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    Funny that the “eyewitness” accounts of the new testament were written by people who never even met Jesus!

  796. #797 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Janine, Kel, don’t you just love godbots who just don’t have any idea about how the bible got stuck together? Certainly makes our jobs easier.

  797. #798 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    There is actually more proof for God then you think. The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament not only by God Himself, but from writers ranging from 2,000 – 4,000 years ago. This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.

    Yeah, that’s the stuff. Stick to what you know best, and it’s comedy gold.

  798. #799 Patricia
    November 17, 2008

    That Currrious was here before and got stomped. Another idiot christian troll.

  799. #800 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    This is tangible enough historical evidence backed up by archeological evidence.

    Liar.

    ? http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html

  800. #801 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    Janine, Kel, don’t you just love godbots who just don’t have any idea about how the bible got stuck together? Certainly makes our jobs easier.

    I’d say it makes it harder, because again their ignorance trumps any knowledge. Just because the historians say that Mark had to be written after the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70CE, and that Matthew & Luke were derived from Mark, and that John was authored by up to three people almost a century later, the bible says they are eyewitness accounts so they must be eyewitness accounts. ;)

  801. #802 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    That Currrious was here before and got stomped. Another idiot christian troll.

    Patricia, I’m sure you have taught clan Bucktard much more about scripture than these IDiots will ever know. The clan can certainly recite it better.

  802. #803 Ken Cope
    November 17, 2008

    The Bible itself is a recorded eye-witnessable testament

    Teno’s got us here. The Bible is certainly eye-witnessable. I’ve witnessed Bibles not only in motel rooms but in bookstores, with entire walls full of bibles, displacing science books by the score. I’ve seen a Gutenberg Bible in the Bancroft stacks in Berkeley, but in my eagerness to peruse an original Shakespeare folio, I ignored it. Why, some of you may even have one in your own home! I don’t. I’ve got young children, one of whom is an avid reader. Like Pete Townsend’s Tommy, my son doesn’t know who Jesus was or what praying is. I’d like him to appreciate some decent fairy tales before he goes exploring the cheap derivative mind-rot and depravity in that collection of bronze-age pr0n promoted here by the creotards.

  803. #804 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Well then I suggest that all you who live in America to pack your bags up and move to the Soviet Union where you’ll have more luck having your evolutionist ideas believed.

    Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible. It is far more reaching then any of you numbnoggins can comprehend.

    And there is far more archeological evidences then you’ve put forth. Why don’t you try some Google searches.

    Oh and Kel, if your looking for answers to the age of the Universe and the light issue continue to look to the Teno G. sites.

  804. #805 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 17, 2008

    Janine, Kel, don’t you just love godbots who just don’t have any idea about how the bible got stuck together? Certainly makes our jobs easier.

    Easier only in that you know exactly where the person is coming from. Difficult in that the person is knowingly wearing mental blinders.

    You could have Hector Avolos point out where the stories of the bible come from. Teno would find the primary sources suspect.

    I’m Teno Groppi, . Chris Long introduced me to this list. I am a King James Bible believing literal Genesis creationist, basing my beliefs on scripture and science (empirical science, not evolutionary theories).

    But he does make for great troll stomping.

    Orcball!

  805. #806 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Well then I suggest that all you who live in America to pack your bags up and move to the Soviet Union where you’ll have more luck having your evolutionist ideas believed.

    Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible. It is far more reaching then any of you numbnoggins can comprehend.

    And there is far more archeological evidences then you’ve put forth. Why don’t you try some Google searches.

    Oh and Kel, if your looking for answers to the age of the Universe and the light issue continue to look to the Teno G. sites.

  806. #807 Feynmaniac
    November 17, 2008

    Well then I suggest that all you who live in America to pack your bags up and move to the Soviet Union where you’ll have more luck having your evolutionist ideas believed.

    Hey, Teno, the Soviet Union has been gone for a while now.

  807. #808 Nerd of Redhead
    November 17, 2008

    Still no thesis and evidence posted by Teno. One must begin to think the IDiot is just full of you know what. Come on Teno, show us what you’ve got. I bet we yawn at it, as we have seen it before.

  808. #809 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    the bible says they are eyewitness accounts so they must be eyewitness accounts

    It doesn’t, actually. The texts of Mark and Matthew have absolutely nothing at all to say about provenance or authorship. Luke, unique in this regard among the gospels, has a brief, formulaic preamble saying that “many have undertaken to compile a narrative” and that “eyewitnesses…have handed them down to us,” so the author admits up front that it is at best a compilation of prior eyewitness accounts.

    And the traditional attributions to the named authors weren’t made until the late 2nd Century at the earliest. (If John Mark were actually the author of Mark, he would have seen Jesus in the flesh at least once on his arrival in the vicinity of Jerusalem, according to Acts, and the attributions to Matthew and John would make them eyewitnesses in the tradition as they were among the twelve.) In any case, the attributions are extra-biblical, made by Papias and other elders of the early church.

  809. #810 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Oh and additionally someone here asked how do we know that we are all related to Noah?

    Again, its in the Bible! This is a word that all you evolutionists should surely know — GENEALOGY! (recorded genealogy).

  810. #811 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    Oh and Kel, if your looking for answers to the age of the Universe and the light issue continue to look to the Teno G. sites.

    No thanks, scientists have a much better track record than you. Here in the southern hemisphere we have the Large Magellenic Cloud. It’s a dwarf galaxy that orbits our own. In 1987 a star inside the galaxy and the observation enabled us to gauge how far away it was: 168,000 light years away. That means that the supernova on the LMC happened 168,000 years ago. We have a means to look back in time in space by looking at distant objects, just as we have a means of looking back in time on earth by looking at the lower layers of rock.

    There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to learning about the natural world. These are the people I trust with evidence, you have shown that you are just an ignorant retard who thinks he knows better than all scientists combined. A little moron who takes a book of mythology as literal fact. You know nothing, you have no knowledge of science, you don’t even understand the basics. Why would I ever read your site when you can’t even demonstrate that you understand even the basics of the natural world?

  811. #812 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    hehehehe…

    AWESOME!

  812. #813 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT!

    Yes, and that’s a bad thing. Which, hopefully, can be changed.

    This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible.

    Liar.

    And there is far more archeological evidences then you’ve put forth.

    Far more evidence that the bible is a lie, yes indeed.

  813. #814 spurge
    November 17, 2008

    Hey Teno,

    Why should we listen to a moron that is unaware that the Soviet union ceased to exist in 1991?

  814. #815 Rey Fox
    November 17, 2008

    “Religion is still the guiding force in the world. And still runs GOVERNMENT! This is because most of Americas principles were founded off of the Judeo-Christian religion and the Bible.”

    Name three of those principles and where they can be found in the Bible.

  815. #816 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 17, 2008

    Oh and additionally someone here asked how do we know that we are all related to Noah?

    Again, its in the Bible! This is a word that all you evolutionists should surely know — GENEALOGY! (recorded genealogy).

    hilarious.

  816. #817 Rey Fox
    November 17, 2008

    “Again, its in the Bible! ”

    What, all those “begats”? Man, you have a selectively low standard for evidence.

  817. #818 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    Oh and additionally someone here asked how do we know that we are all related to Noah?

    Again, its in the Bible! This is a word that all you evolutionists should surely know — GENEALOGY! (recorded genealogy).

    That’s it, I’m calling poe.

  818. #819 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    That was even better than what I had hoped he would say…

    So who’s my great great great great great great great great grandfather?

    Religion is the foundation for our country? Yet it’s barely mentioned in the constitution other than defining that there be a clear division between the two.

    I wonder what Teno thinks of Unitarians. hehe.

  819. #820 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    What! Is the newly scientific citation more credible then documented history. There are many historic recorded documents that talk about the existence of Jesus even by the Romans. But some of the more phenomenal archeological ones exists in the Old Testament. It is a goldmine of treasures, and some even yet to be discovered!

  820. #821 Patricia
    November 17, 2008

    Isn’t this joker some old ancient balrog that turns up periodically?

    Before I landed here I would have sworn that no christians existed that didn’t know the bible thoroughly. This has been quite an eye opener for me.

  821. #822 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Kel, check out the links that Steve C provided. Teno is not a poe. If

  822. #823 Feynmaniac
    November 17, 2008

    How did the left-handed signature in all live come about?

    Clearly this happened because God was left handed. Creator of all life and he still can’t operate a standard pair of scissors.

    Somebody please tell a decent joke!

    Okay,…..Teno Groppi.

  823. #824 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    Far more evidence that the bible is a lie, yes indeed.

    In and of itself, it’s not a lie, any more than The Iliad is. It takes a stupid and dishonest sack of shit like our Teno to make a collection of myths and legends from the Iron Age and make of it a despicable lie.

  824. #825 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    November 17, 2008

    Posted by: Patricia | November 17, 2008

    Before I landed here I would have sworn that no christians existed that didn’t know the bible thoroughly. This has been quite an eye opener for me.

    Being The Queen Of The Sluts, I thought you would have been more worldly. Or did it take giving up the bible to bring out the slut within?

  825. #826 Owlmirror
    November 17, 2008

    There are many historic recorded documents that talk about the existence of Jesus even by the Romans.

    Liar.

    But some of the more phenomenal archeological ones exists in the Old Testament.

    Liar.

    It is a goldmine of treasures, and some even yet to be discovered!

    Pants on fire.

  826. #827 Kel
    November 17, 2008

    What! Is the newly scientific citation more credible then documented history.

    You betcha! especially when the “documented history” is nothing more than allegorical mythology. The authors (that’s right, there was more than one) of Genesis were not there to witness the beginning of the universe, they were not there in the garden of eden, they were not there when the great flood happened or when the tower of babel was struck down. They were not there when abraham wandered the land, just as they were not there when a few slaves escaped from Egypt. The bible is not a historical document, it’s a mythical account of the origins of the tribal middle-eastern herders who settled in a then-fertile area. The tales of the torah have as much historical credibility as the Australian Aboriginal dreamtime myths.

    The bible is not a historical document, it’s fantasy, mythic storytelling. It has as much credibility as a historical document as The Iliad. Just because the greeks existed, and archaeological findings have a place that fits the description of Troy, it does not mean the Goddess Athena appeared to the greeks before the battle.

    The facts of the earth’s history are imprinted into the lands, we only need to look to learn about the distant past. Just as we only need to look to the stars to see the distant past in space. When we see the moon, we are seeing it 1.2 seconds ago. We are seeing the sun 8.33 minutes ago. We see Aplha Centauri 4.5 years ago. We see the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million years ago. We can and do look back in time because the evidence is there. If you are going to ignore it for the sake of belief, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that you know nothing and stop arguing against people who have more knowledge than you’ll ever aquire.

  827. #828 Steve_C
    November 17, 2008

    That’s like saying Lord of the Rings is evidence of magic Teno.

    You’re kinda nuts.

    There was no ark. The was no immaculate conception. No talking burning bush. No walking on water. No zombie jesus. No adam. No eve. No talking snake. No tree of knowledge. No angels. No demons. No Satan.

    Shall I go on?

    The bible is not evidence for anything but superstition and deception.

  828. #829 Wowbagger
    November 17, 2008

    Teno, please cite the chapter and verse of the bible where it endorses government via a republic or a democracy rather than a monarchy or a theocracy.

  829. #830 CJO
    November 17, 2008

    There are many historic recorded documents that talk about the existence of Jesus even by the Romans.

    No, you’re lying. True, there is Josephus: regarded as a forged interpolation by most honest (read: “not Christian”) scholars, and on good grounds too. The best evidence is the silence of Origen, who is clearly familiar with the Antiquities as he quotes from other parts of it. It’s pretty hard to believe he wouldn’t have made a fuss about the passage in question. Best guess is it was inserted by a contemporary of Eusebius, or possibly by the man himself. No other Roman, Hellenistic or named Jewish writer of the period has a thing to say about Yeshua ben Yosef.

    But hey, buck up! Lying for and about Jesus has a long history at least.

    But some of the more phenomenal archeological ones exists in the Old Testament. It is a goldmine of treasures, and some even yet to be discovered!

    You better hope it’s yet to be discovered, ’cause what we’ve got so far ain’t lookin so good for your team.

  830. #831 Rey Fox
    November 17, 2008

    “You better hope it’s yet to be discovered, ’cause what we’ve got so far ain’t lookin so good for your team. ”

    And every time something new is discovered (e.g., the Gospel of Judas, the Dead Sea Scrolls), the usual religious suspects freak out and declare it heresy.

  831. #832 Teno Groppi
    November 17, 2008

    Ray Fox, you asked me to name three principles of American government that are found in the Bible that are based off of Judeo-Christian principles.

    Well I think the poster Curious (a friend of mine) had adequately answered this for you. One of them being the right to bear arms in self defense. A second would be one that is still extremely prevalent in all courts of law today — being the Ten Commandments. And thirdly, marriage laws. Just to name a few, of course there are lots more.

    And no to your statement about begats. Its a little more precise then that. These are also backed up by eras. For instance from the genealogy given in the Bible we know that Adam existed around – 930, Lamech – 874-1651, Noah – 1056-2006, Terah – 1879-2084, Abraham – 2009-2184, Flood – 1650.

    The timeline today from Jesus was 2,000 years, and from Jesus to Abraham was 2,000 years, and from Abraham back to Adam is about 2,000 years which gives us an approximate age of 6,000 years.

    Oh and I also see that Curious did not adequately answer the number of Jews that were present a Mount Sinai during the “National Revelation” of God. I will answer that answer correctly so that you will see how scripture works. And then I will have to adjourn this conversation for tomorrow:

    It is quite obvious from the verses in the Torah Starting in Exodus 12:37 – “The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, the men, besides the young children.”

    “from 20 years old and older” This is actually based on what it says in Numbers chapter 1:

    1. The Lord spoke to Moses in the Sinai Desert, in the Tent of Meeting on the first day of the second month, in the second year after the exodus from the land of Egypt, saying.

    2. Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers’ houses; a head count of every male according to the number of their names.

    3. From twenty years old and upwards, all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel, you shall count them by their legions you and Aaron.

    and further in verse 46-47:

    The sum of all those who were counted: six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty.

    But the Levites, according to their father’s tribe were not numbered among them.

    Hence the term “600,000 of army age” in the article.

    Now if you take the number 600,000 (or more accurately 603,550) and add Levites (which in chapter 3, is placed at about 22,000) and add women and children – a conservative estimate of one child per family, would net about 2 million people. In reality, it was most probably over 3 million.

    To be adjourned tomorrow.

  832. #833 Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM
    November 17, 2008

    Teno if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

  833. #834 Patricia
    November 17, 2008

    Janine, Before I quit godding I was a very straitlaced fundie christian. My only friends were fundies too. Now I never see them because they’re shunning me. That’s the best part!

  834. #835 Rey Fox
    November 17, 2008

    “One of them being the right to bear arms in self defense.”

    Seriously? Guns in the Bible? You or someone else is going to have to help me out with this one.

    “A second would be one that is still extremely prevalent in all courts of law today — being the Ten Commandments.”

    Massive fail. There are no laws against coveting (without coveting, our economic system would fail, after all). There are no laws against adultery. There are no laws regulating the honor of one’s father and mother. There are no laws against graven images. There are no laws about having no god before the Big G. You’d have to move to Saudi Arabia to find a country that is even close to being ruled by the ten comandments. The only two comandments that are enshrined in law (and NOT in the Constitution,