Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hyzer · 04-08-2003, 10:22 AM

opps. My bad, should read earlier pages more closely.

Ensign Steve · 04-08-2003, 10:23 AM

I didn't mean to hang you up. I do it all the time. Great minds think alike, huh? You also one-upped me when you bothered to spell camoflague correctly.

SanDiegoAtheist · 04-08-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

Now considering that ~130 million babies are now being born every year, it's clear that it won't take 100,000 generations to get an advantageous point mutation.

And of course, being that humans have VERY long generation lengths, and SMALL populations compared to the majority of lifeforms on the earth (yes, even at 6B, our population isn't even close to that of, say rats, let alone bacterial or insectoid populations), we'd expect evolution to operate very SLOWLY in comparison on us.

I wonder how many point mutations a species with the population size and generation length of an insect would come up with in a year? Quintillions? After all, nobody argues that HUMANS evolved an eye - it would've been a precursor species in the far past, and probably a much smaller, faster breeding one.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

ex-xian · 04-08-2003, 05:17 PM

I don't study biology, but I do study physics, and I get really frustrated when the creationists (and others) use entropy to refute evolution. Seems to me that the physicists would have thought of this a long time ago if it were true. Anyway,

Quote:

Originally posted by EggplantTrent
By the second law of thermodynamics, random events...all events move toward greater entropy (chaos). That alone is good reason to suspect error in the theory.

That is not what the second law states. To quote it stated a few ways.
1) It is impossible to construct a heat engine that, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the absorbtion of energy from a reservoir and the performance of an equal amount of work.
2) It is impossible to construct an engine that is 100% efficient.
3) Isolated systems tend toward disorder, entropy is a measure of this disorder.

Basically, all useful energy will eventually become heat in an isolated system. The measurement of that is called entropy. The collary that systems tend toward disorder cannot apply to earth for the reasons already stated.

Ensign Steve · 04-08-2003, 05:34 PM

"Isolated" there's your key word. If earth was an isoloated system, it might apply. But we get our energy from the Sun, which is causing a lot more entropy than is required to make up for the ordered systems seen in evolution.

Kimpatsu · 04-08-2003, 05:57 PM

The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed energy system, and the only closed energy system of which we know is the universe entire. Whilst systems tend towards entropy overall, it is perfectly possible to have localised decreases in entropy, provided that the overall entropy of the closed system increases.
For example, let's suppose you buy some grotty Ikea furniture by mail order. It arrives in boxes, and you have to assemble it. You use your muscles and the energy they derived from the Weetabix you ate this morning (which in turn is made from wheat grown under the Sun) to assemble the furniture. You have reduced the entropy locally (of the disassembled furniture) by adding to the net increase in entropy (loss of energy from yourself). Growing plants that photosynthesize, including the wheat used to make our morning breakfast cereal, are reducing entropy locally as they grow, but they do so by increasing the entropy of the Sun in the form or radiation emitted (sent out into space never to return), which ultimately increases the overall entropy of the universe entire.
Russian physicist Illya Prigogene won the Nobel prize in 1979 for demonstrating this fact. Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Hardly. It actually indirectly proves that evolution exists, because just as we can witness plants grow, we can extrapolate evolution, both micro and macro, based on exactly the same process of localised entropy reduction.
Yes another creationist strawman blown down.

Darwin's Beagle · 04-08-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godot
Just to play devil's advocate here, but what pray tell, is the advantage conferred by colour blindness?
But then again, I can see that the intention was to demonstrate that a small change does not invalidate the function of the optical unit.
But then again, anyone care to elaborate on a potential rationale for colour blindness (silly arguments encouraged)?

Let me take a shot at possible reasons that color blindness might be selected for.

1) Energy conservation: In an environment where color doesn't much matter the energy an organism uses in making and supporting cones could be used for procreation.

2) Some specialized environments it is possible that a person suffering from red-green color blindness could distinguish between some shades that a color normal individual could not. I do not know of any specialized environment in actual existence in which that would be true, but I do know that the Ishihara Color Plates used to test for color deficiency (each plate consist of a circle of randomly placed dots in which some of the dots are shaded and people with normal color vision will see a number) have some plates in which normals do NOT see a number but color deficient people may.

3) Color deficiency has in the past been used as a reason to disqualify a person from military service. In a situation in which a large number of males are killed in war, perhaps color deficiency could be selected for.

OK, that is about as much as I can come up with. I doubt if any apply at the present time, but at least theoretically any could apply at some time in the future.

Regards
Darwin's Beagle

EggplantTrent · 04-08-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

not to mention irreducible complexities (i love those ). take the woodpecker. in order for that complexed aminal to properly function, it had to have a working extra long tongue, an increadibly hard beak, and a super-strong skull system to not crush under impact. so, which evolved first? the only thing that could work is to ALL happen at the same time, since take any one of them, and you have a creature unable to function. it could have a super-strong beak, but the skull would crush under the first hit. or, even beak and skull, it would have no manner of extracting the insects from the trees. this is a systematic irreducible complexity. and they abound in nature, the human body, all over.

which part of the eye evolved first? do you realize just how complexed the human eye really is? any one of those sinlge parts would be useless on their own. any 3, any 5. take your pick all the way up to complete system - 1, and you have a non-functioning eye. now, i've heard people claim these so-called irreducible complexities do not exist at all, and that they could have mutated all at the same time. now, once again, you want to say that science does not rest on faith? show me the evidence. i want to see how they could have all evolved at exactly the same time. basically, that's a very rapid sense of evolution, and one that flies in the face of what i understand to be basic evolution. too quick. not to mention, the mathematic feasibility of all those muations happening at exactly the same time.

talk about a super-natural event, for something that has the odds of taking place once every trillion trillion trillion years (something astronomical like that, for something like the eye to evolve perfectly with all it's complexities) to happen in the supposed several million years that humans have been supposedly evolving. you're talking infintesimal, especially since there has to be so many other things which had to take place before hand.

another thing i love is how scientists keep pushing back the supposed date of the big bang. oops, not enough time, lets give it a few billion more years, maybe that will be enough time to give all these mutations. i don't even think it happened remotely close to this. like i said, i'm a creationist. this system is increadibly implausible, even if you through in the notion of God (but that's another beef, for another thread ).

Is there such a thing as "irreducible complexity"?

EggplantTrent

Kimpatsu · 04-08-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EggplantTrent
Is there such a thing as "irreducible complexity

No, there isn't. Read Richard Dawkins for details.

Arthwollipot · 04-09-2003, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed energy system, and the only closed energy system of which we know is the universe entire. Whilst systems tend towards entropy overall, it is perfectly possible to have localised decreases in entropy, provided that the overall entropy of the closed system increases.

The creationists of my acquaintance cite the Second Law as being aplicable to the whole universe and believe that this disproves evolution. I'm not entirely sure how the argument goes (perhaps Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ can help here!) but claimimg that the Earth is an open system doesn't hold water with them.

I think that they are trying to say that stars and galaxies are logically impossible. In fact there's someone on another forum who seems to be claiming exactly that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2003, 10:22 AM	#31
hyzer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: philadelphia Posts: 1,844	opps. My bad, should read earlier pages more closely.

04-08-2003, 10:23 AM	#32
Ensign Steve Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Augusta, Georgia, United States Posts: 1,235	I didn't mean to hang you up. I do it all the time. Great minds think alike, huh? You also one-upped me when you bothered to spell camoflague correctly.

04-08-2003, 05:34 PM	#35
Ensign Steve Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Augusta, Georgia, United States Posts: 1,235	"Isolated" there's your key word. If earth was an isoloated system, it might apply. But we get our energy from the Sun, which is causing a lot more entropy than is required to make up for the ordered systems seen in evolution.

04-08-2003, 05:57 PM	#36
Kimpatsu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 1,126	The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed energy system, and the only closed energy system of which we know is the universe entire. Whilst systems tend towards entropy overall, it is perfectly possible to have localised decreases in entropy, provided that the overall entropy of the closed system increases. For example, let's suppose you buy some grotty Ikea furniture by mail order. It arrives in boxes, and you have to assemble it. You use your muscles and the energy they derived from the Weetabix you ate this morning (which in turn is made from wheat grown under the Sun) to assemble the furniture. You have reduced the entropy locally (of the disassembled furniture) by adding to the net increase in entropy (loss of energy from yourself). Growing plants that photosynthesize, including the wheat used to make our morning breakfast cereal, are reducing entropy locally as they grow, but they do so by increasing the entropy of the Sun in the form or radiation emitted (sent out into space never to return), which ultimately increases the overall entropy of the universe entire. Russian physicist Illya Prigogene won the Nobel prize in 1979 for demonstrating this fact. Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Hardly. It actually indirectly proves that evolution exists, because just as we can witness plants grow, we can extrapolate evolution, both micro and macro, based on exactly the same process of localised entropy reduction. Yes another creationist strawman blown down.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.