Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on May 3, 2006 19:09:31 GMT -5
St. Pete, I know you have been writing a paper all day (while posting about 65 times, God love ya), and you may be knee deep in the hoopla now that you are done and probably don't care, but Darrow was on the side of evolution. It was WJB who represented the anti-Darwin crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 3, 2006 19:33:45 GMT -5
nice anchorman reference, washington.
i don't even know where to begin. for some reason, my first thought is of freshman bio, sitting in Reiss 103.....
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 3, 2006 19:37:03 GMT -5
nyc, if you want Gator to be banned, just PM Dan or DFW. I PM'ed Dan last night to request Gator's banning. The guy is easily the worst poster ever on HoyaTalk, and I would argue that the race isn't even close.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on May 3, 2006 19:54:52 GMT -5
I think you have to kill someone to get banned. Like when Baselinejournal killed Borat. Because if hifi's double whammy of starting a thread about his friend's illness on the basketball board and disgustlingly homophobic remark on the same day did not get him booted (and believe me, I asked for it), I don't know what will.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on May 3, 2006 20:31:50 GMT -5
Hifi -- do all these books that you have read refer to the singular of species as "specie" (like you do)? If so, that may explain a lot, since the singular of species is "species."
|
|
VelvetElvis
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
pka MrPathetic
Posts: 934
|
Post by VelvetElvis on May 4, 2006 6:55:44 GMT -5
"For whatever reason I took and interest in the subject and did a science project on it in a non-religious high school, and I also wrote a paper in college on the subject as well."
Let the record also show that Mr. Popularity's vast knowledge on this discussion comes from a paper written in the Florida public school system (consistently ranked in the bottom 5) and one singular paper that he wrote while in undergrad at UF!
hifi, you bit off more than you can chew here. There are some real intelligent cats lurking on this board. My suggestion is that you run on back to the gator board, where I am certain that your arguments on topics such as this make you look and feel like a mental giant. If you hurry no one over there will catch wind of how things are shaping up for you over here. Your reputation might still be in tact.
Good night and good luck!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 4, 2006 11:16:37 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out what the big bang has to do with evolution...
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas A gigantic nuclear furnace Where hydrogen is built into helium At a temperature of millions of degrees
Yo ho, it's hot, the sun is not A place where we could live But here on earth there'd be no life Without the light it gives
We need it's light We need it's heat We need it's energy Without the sun, without a doubt There'd be no you and me
The sun is a mass of incandescent gas A gigantic nuclear furnace Where hydrogen is built into helium At a temperature of millions of degrees
For the record, while I didn't bother to read past the first line of hifi's posts in this thread, I do agree that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis can jive with evolution. Then again, a non-literal interpretation of anything always jives with reality, since a non-literal interpretation isn't supposed to represent reality...
Anyhoo, I also think that there are parts of evolutionary theory that are obviously wrong; we are rarely perfectly right about anything on the first thousand tries, why would we be perfectly right here?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2006 11:19:07 GMT -5
T.M.B.G.!!!!
Awesome, baby!
The band that teaches you more about painters, presidents, fauna and thermonuclear chemistry than you ever learned in school!
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on May 4, 2006 12:04:36 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out why Constantinople became Istanbul, though.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on May 4, 2006 12:07:19 GMT -5
Don't forget about James K. Polk - our 11th President - young Hickory - the Napoleon of the stump
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2006 12:31:10 GMT -5
I'm still trying to figure out why Constantinople became Istanbul, though. Did you guys know that the sun is a mass of incandescent gas? A gigantic nuclear furnace? Where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 4, 2006 13:53:06 GMT -5
"For whatever reason I took and interest in the subject and did a science project on it in a non-religious high school, and I also wrote a paper in college on the subject as well." Let the record also show that Mr. Popularity's vast knowledge on this discussion comes from a paper written in the Florida public school system (consistently ranked in the bottom 5) and one singular paper that he wrote while in undergrad at UF! hifi, you bit off more than you can chew here. There are some real intelligent cats lurking on this board. My suggestion is that you run on back to the gator board, where I am certain that your arguments on topics such as this make you look and feel like a mental giant. If you hurry no one over there will catch wind of how things are shaping up for you over here. Your reputation might still be in tact. Good night and good luck! First things first, and I don't say this to blow my own horn. I went to a private school, graduated in a class of a whopping 26. I am not sure if that is a good thing or not, but in any case if you are trying to knock the education I had then you are the one biting off more than you should. But that is not the point here. I know there are some intelligent people here, never said anything to the contrary. There are also quite a few who seem rather uninerested in any debate, but only in trivial pre-adolescent name calling. But in fairness we have those on our board as well as most others for sure. No one yet has addressed the questions I posed. Again they aren't intended to disprove evolution and certainly not intended to say anything about creation. I haven't even mentioned creation except in response to specific comments by you all, and then only in passing. The main point is that "evolution" as it is generally considered is presented as science. To a degree that is certainly understandable. As a mechanism for developmental stages of what we see it is a virtual certainty. But to use the provable aspects which we can see and test to "support" that which we cannot is fallacious. That is the main point. So if evolution is to be presented as not only a mechanism which causes changes over time in the makeup and popularity of the species, but also as the initial source of life itself then I present some questions. Who's right? Neither of us can say at this point. My whole point is that in this regard we are putting our faith in either ideology, whether it be evolution or creation. Of we are to accept evolution as the original source of life then there are certainly some questions to be asked. The fact that there is a virtually limitless range of species and yet not one single example of something which is an intermediary species is certainly of concern. The fact that we have no fossil record (yet)of even one such "animal" is even more cause for question. The fact that this theory is predicated on a continual and systematic movement towards order flies in the face of proven science laws. Yes, the sun is the external energy source for changes but those changes are "always" towards disorder or chaos. (Don't blame me; I didn't write the book, just read it.) And lastly, if we are to believe that everything we see "just happened" by random chance and the sort then it is very reasonable to ask the question "what started the ball rolling." Whoever said that "evolution and the Big Bang are not the same thing" missed the point. In this particular issue, the Big Bang is primarily adopted as the solution to this particular question. If you are an evolutionist who believes in a different primary source then I would be interested in hearing it. For people who keep talking about how smart they are, all you seem to do is name call and talk down of others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2006 15:06:01 GMT -5
I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T! I mean, S-M-A-R-T!
hifi = Feinstein
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on May 4, 2006 15:17:11 GMT -5
Dear HiFi: Leave.
Thanks, HoyaTalk
|
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by CO_Hoya on May 4, 2006 15:33:09 GMT -5
The fact that this theory is predicated on a continual and systematic movement towards order flies in the face of proven science laws. Yes, the sun is the external energy source for changes but those changes are "always" towards disorder or chaos. (Don't blame me; I didn't write the book, just read it.) Unfortunately, you don't understand it. I realize that this is a fool's errand, but I will try to tackle your mis-understanding and mis-use of the 2nd law of TD. A thermodynamically irreversible process (e.g. the free expansion of a gas) is spontaneous, and therefore entropy increases. I believe this is how you understand the 2nd law. However, reversible reactions (example to follow) do not require an increase in entropy to the system, but rather can add entropy to the surroundings. Example: water from hydrogen and oxygen gas (basis for some fuel cells) 2H2 (g) + O2 (g) -> 2 H2O (l) Here, there is a marked decrease in the system's entropy, on the order of 1 kJ/(mol*K). This reaction also results in a large increase in enthalphy [if you're still paying attention, the same 1 kJ/(mol*K)]. This is released as heat to the surroundings, which will experience an increase in entropy equal to the decrease in our system. Change in entropy = 0. By the principle of microscopic reversibility, the reaction could just as easily go in the opposite direction (water to hydrogen and oxygen) if the surroundings inject that same amount of heat into our system. This example can be extrapolated to biological systems, as they are just a myriad of chemical reactions. Ergo, life is not violating the 2nd law of TD. I can assure you that people far smarter than you or I would have been shouting this down from the mountains many years ago if it were true. Edited to add that I used Atkins' Physical Chemistry (5th ed.) for my examples, as it is within reach from this computer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2006 15:35:54 GMT -5
Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
|
|
|
Post by HoyaOnBothSides on May 4, 2006 16:10:30 GMT -5
This is the most self-serving, love-to-hear-yourself-speak, ridiculous, thread ever. Booo-urns!
Buffoon, what do you have to say about this?
Buffoon: One time I ate my neighbor's s(edited for toilet humor) Dean: That's understandable.
|
|
tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 803
|
Post by tgo on May 4, 2006 16:32:16 GMT -5
i know the point of this thred is just to poke fun at that florida fan who everyone loves to hate and for some reason cant just ignore when he posts dumb or pointless things about everything in the world including his grandma, but...
on the supposed topic here he makes a salient point (hope i dont get struck down by lightning by the hoyatalk gods for typing that since it is akin to - or probably worse than-agreeing with the_way which is something i think i did once then promptly came down with the plague) that there should be but isnt any sort of proof to support a central part of evolutionary theory, why so many missing links? why no evidence of the many many steps taken between different levels of species? i dont pretend to be an expert on any of this and anyone who knows me knows i am far far far from being a religous person but i have seen far too many possible holes in evolutionary theory for me to think it is completely settled and shouldnt ever be questioned. Is it the best most likely theory, without a doubt. But it should not be considered settled science and i see no problem with schools or whomever, mentioning that there are others who have crazy unprovable theories as well that could be right, evolution just sounds a little less crazy and is a little closer to provable than the others.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 4, 2006 16:49:27 GMT -5
The fact that this theory is predicated on a continual and systematic movement towards order flies in the face of proven science laws. Yes, the sun is the external energy source for changes but those changes are "always" towards disorder or chaos. (Don't blame me; I didn't write the book, just read it.) Unfortunately, you don't understand it. I realize that this is a fool's errand, but I will try to tackle your mis-understanding and mis-use of the 2nd law of TD. A thermodynamically irreversible process (e.g. the free expansion of a gas) is spontaneous, and therefore entropy increases. I believe this is how you understand the 2nd law. However, reversible reactions (example to follow) do not require an increase in entropy to the system, but rather can add entropy to the surroundings. Example: water from hydrogen and oxygen gas (basis for some fuel cells) 2H2 (g) + O2 (g) -> 2 H2O (l) Here, there is a marked decrease in the system's entropy, on the order of 1 kJ/(mol*K). This reaction also results in a large increase in enthalphy [if you're still paying attention, the same 1 kJ/(mol*K)]. This is released as heat to the surroundings, which will experience an increase in entropy equal to the decrease in our system. Change in entropy = 0. By the principle of microscopic reversibility, the reaction could just as easily go in the opposite direction (water to hydrogen and oxygen) if the surroundings inject that same amount of heat into our system. This example can be extrapolated to biological systems, as they are just a myriad of chemical reactions. Ergo, life is not violating the 2nd law of TD. I can assure you that people far smarter than you or I would have been shouting this down from the mountains many years ago if it were true. Edited to add that I used Atkins' Physical Chemistry (5th ed.) for my examples, as it is within reach from this computer. and someone said I was just wanting to hear myself talk ... You are getting several things mixed up. Initially you essentially describe physical vs. chemical reactions. I am not sure what your point is here, but in any case the second law of TD is intended to apply to both. Next you bring in the "conservation of energy" theory. That is tangetial at best. The idea that energy is trasferred not consumed has little to do with much here. Yes the sun is our source of energy. Yes, it gives the energy for many things that have been mentioned to happen. No, that doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand. When things "tend towards disorder" that does imply without external agitation. Yes the sun can be/is the source of such energy agitation. That much is accepted by all, but the changes that occur in all of our testable experimentation is that left alone without a degree of guidance the overall direction of the model will tend to chaos as these changes occur. That is the point. Yes, the sun is the source of energy which ultimately results in the development of order, but that alone goes against on of science's laws.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on May 4, 2006 16:51:52 GMT -5
Incidentally, I like the way some of you simply take the approach "oh not, that's not a problem at all." And try to end it like that. Once again, I have read numerous books on the subject and these are the same types of very difficult questions to answer that they face. Yet your seemingly "head-in-the-sand" view simply says "oh no, no problem" and then you babble on about me not knowing what I am talking about.
|
|