hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,604
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 15, 2007 16:48:27 GMT -5
[backslapping] Exactly bando especailly the point about phyletic gradualism I don't know why hifi, you're assuming that evolution says it has to take place gradually. And I and others have brought up the later points but have been systematically ignored. Oh well. [/backslaping] I am not the one assuming that it had to be done gradually, that is what underlies the very theory of macro evolutionary thought. If you are suggesting that it happened almost spontaneously, then you might be an advocate for a guiding hand in the process ... dare I even say ... intelligent design? Tables, get off your stinking high horse, those little barbs are just joking phrases. Don't get your panties in a wad. Oops, there's another one. Good night all. Good one, tough guy.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 15, 2007 16:50:32 GMT -5
No, it's not debated by scientists. The definition of the second law of thermodynamics is not a big matter of contention in the scientific world. You are wrong about this, pure and simple, you can't BS you're way out of this one. I caught you on it, and now you've resorted to ad hominem attacks to cover your tracks. Like you always do.
Well then that's your problem, not evolutionary theory's. Your argument, simply stated, is "I don't understand macroevolution, therefore it didn't happen." Many of us have tried to explain this to you and you have simply ignored us. Again, this is par for the course for you. Go away, troll.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 15, 2007 16:51:35 GMT -5
Late for the early bird special, are we?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 15, 2007 21:10:56 GMT -5
Darwin was a proponent of the idea that evolution happened gradually, but that claim was controversial even among his contemporary supporters.
I personally think that the idea of bursts of rapid change in a certain geographical area makes a heck of a lot more sesnse. Changing climatic conditions (end of the Ice Age for example) or new species in an area can have a seismic effect on the species makeup of the local area.
Here's just one example. New Zealand is very geographically isolated, and as a result it had a very unique ecology. There were only three native mammals, all of which were bats. Bird life dominated. The most notable species were the moa (a big ostrich-like flightless bird), large predatory birds, and the famous kiwi. Humans only arrived in New Zealand about 1000 years ago, according to most estimates. That's nary a blink in geological time, but there have still been massive changes in the local ecology. The humans killed off the moa in short order, and more importantly they brought predatory mammals with them - the first predatory land creatures in New Zealand. Those creatures killed off a lot of the local species, and starved the predatory birds into extinction. The kiwi has been one of the few survivors, but it's on the way out too.
So that proves one aspect of the evolutionary theory - that creatures more suited to the environment take over from those that are less suited (natural selection). The time since the human arrival has been too short for the new creatures to evolve much, but given the uniqueness and complete isolation of New Zealand I'd imagine that the New Zealand possums/rats/stoats/etc. will some day be very different from their Polynesian/Australian/European ancestors. Detailed analysis would probably be able to spot a few differences already.
The incomplete fossil record is really a red herring as far as the debate is concerned. Expecting to find a fossil of every creature that has ever existed on this planet is just plain stupid. What matters more are the basic concepts of the theory - namely that species change over time, and that a species that is more suited to an environment will replace species that are less suited. There are plenty of examples like the one I just gave that prove those concepts. Thus, evolution by natural selection.
And hifi, please leave your homophobia in Florida.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 16, 2007 11:54:33 GMT -5
Bando, I have no idea why you deny what is accepted as a debatable issue. Certainly there are multiple sides to the issue, that is why it is debated in the first place. But without a doubt, the fact that among our laws of physics is the second law of thermodynamics, which basically states that indepedent systems will tend from order to disorder. That is not debatable. Now for macro-evolution to happen, the exact opposite must happen repeatedly and for a very, very long time -- millions of years.
The theory that seemingly rectifies this issue is that we have the sun pouring ridiculous amounts of enerygy into the ecosytem. It is still very much of a theory that adding energy will automatically reverse the typical trend towards disorder. Experiments attempting to show such trends have been primarily random, creating more order in some areas and more disorder in others. Still, that does offer some support that an external energy source has the potential to cause or at least encourage more order. I am not denying that. My point is that every single issue I mention, which are some of the tough questions facing strict macro-evolutionsists, you respond with another theory and therefore abitrarily act as if you have concluded scientifically the answer. One last time: I am not denying evolution on either the micro or macro scale. What I am pointing out is that there are uncertainties, especially with the macro theory which essentially require a degree of faith (belief in that we cannot see) to fully accept.
You say oh no there isn't a problem between evolutionary theory and our laws of thermodynamics. Yet many scientists have debated that very issue and arrived at different conclusions. I am not saying that it refutes evolution, in fact far from it. But I am saying that issues of this sort bring up areas of uncertainty. You are the one blindly accepting faith by accepting a proposed theory as being the answer. It might be, but be smart enough to acknowledge that it also might not be.
Stig, the incomplete fossil record is absolutely not a red herring. One more time, for evolution of the macro scale to have occurred, then there must have been millions upon millions of intermediary species, representing stages between reptiles and birds or between mammals and birds or between mammals and amphibians etc.... The fact is that we don't have one single fossil which we can identify as one of these intermediary steps. Does that dispove evolution? No. But to blindly disregard that the lack of just one such intermediary specia among the literally millions in our history at least causes us to question the theory is just plain silly.
For the rest of you, the question of explosive periods such as the cambrian era, where life developed far more rapidly and in a much more diverse manner is an entirely different issue altogether. I personally don't think that it really creates any obstacle for evolutionary thought. What I do think it creates however, is a reason to ask "why?" What was so special in this period that life expanded far more rapidly that in other periods?
Lastly Stig, your illustration of the new carnivores brought into New Zealand is interesting but really answers no questions. No one ever really denied natural selection on a minor scale. That would be idiotic. You take all of the cats in a county for instance and place them in a large pit with a handful of mice and see what happens. Pretty soon natural selection will take care of those mice. Now add a pack of pit bulls into the pit. My guess is that cats will soon be few and far between. Now add a couple of dozen alligators to the pit. I would think that might put a dent into the pit bull population. THe point is no one denies this type of change due essentially to culture shock. The question is where are the new creatures? You have given a great example of how speciation could be reduced, but none as to how it could flourish. I understand that 1000 years is not nearly enough time to notice much in the way of evolution, but that is not relaly the point.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 16, 2007 12:34:33 GMT -5
Bando, I have no idea why you deny what is accepted as a debatable issue. Certainly there are multiple sides to the issue, that is why it is debated in the first place. But without a doubt, the fact that among our laws of physics is the second law of thermodynamics, which basically states that indepedent systems will tend from order to disorder. That is not debatable. Now for macro-evolution to happen, the exact opposite must happen repeatedly and for a very, very long time -- millions of years. The theory that seemingly rectifies this issue is that we have the sun pouring ridiculous amounts of enerygy into the ecosytem. It is still very much of a theory that adding energy will automatically reverse the typical trend towards disorder. Experiments attempting to show such trends have been primarily random, creating more order in some areas and more disorder in others. Still, that does offer some support that an external energy source has the potential to cause or at least encourage more order. I am not denying that. My point is that every single issue I mention, which are some of the tough questions facing strict macro-evolutionsists, you respond with another theory and therefore abitrarily act as if you have concluded scientifically the answer. One last time: I am not denying evolution on either the micro or macro scale. What I am pointing out is that there are uncertainties, especially with the macro theory which essentially require a degree of faith (belief in that we cannot see) to fully accept. You say oh no there isn't a problem between evolutionary theory and our laws of thermodynamics. Yet many scientists have debated that very issue and arrived at different conclusions. I am not saying that it refutes evolution, in fact far from it. But I am saying that issues of this sort bring up areas of uncertainty. You are the one blindly accepting faith by accepting a proposed theory as being the answer. It might be, but be smart enough to acknowledge that it also might not be. Stig, the incomplete fossil record is absolutely not a red herring. One more time, for evolution of the macro scale to have occurred, then there must have been millions upon millions of intermediary species, representing stages between reptiles and birds or between mammals and birds or between mammals and amphibians etc.... The fact is that we don't have one single fossil which we can identify as one of these intermediary steps. Does that dispove evolution? No. But to blindly disregard that the lack of just one such intermediary specia among the literally millions in our history at least causes us to question the theory is just plain silly. For the rest of you, the question of explosive periods such as the cambrian era, where life developed far more rapidly and in a much more diverse manner is an entirely different issue altogether. I personally don't think that it really creates any obstacle for evolutionary thought. What I do think it creates however, is a reason to ask "why?" What was so special in this period that life expanded far more rapidly that in other periods? Lastly Stig, your illustration of the new carnivores brought into New Zealand is interesting but really answers no questions. No one ever really denied natural selection on a minor scale. That would be idiotic. You take all of the cats in a county for instance and place them in a large pit with a handful of mice and see what happens. Pretty soon natural selection will take care of those mice. Now add a pack of pit bulls into the pit. My guess is that cats will soon be few and far between. Now add a couple of dozen alligators to the pit. I would think that might put a dent into the pit bull population. THe point is no one denies this type of change due essentially to culture shock. The question is where are the new creatures? You have given a great example of how speciation could be reduced, but none as to how it could flourish. I understand that 1000 years is not nearly enough time to notice much in the way of evolution, but that is not relaly the point. The stupid, it burns. HiFi, every single point you make here has already addressed, you have just chosen to ignore them. And apparently you still haven't bothered to look up the second law of thermodynamics. I don't know what more I can possibly say, other that GO AWAY, TROLL.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 16, 2007 12:58:17 GMT -5
This is a legitimate question: why would evolution go against the concept that systems go from order to disorder?
wouldn't going from one type of animal two two types of animals be goign for order to dissorder? I'm legitimately confused. could you please explain that argument.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 16, 2007 14:14:44 GMT -5
Bando, you say all these issues have been addressed. Well you merely stating your opinion isn't establishing a conclusion. One last time, the question of a theory which progresses systematically from the simplest organisms to the most complex, oftentimes with the most complex winning out by natural selection is clearly an indication of order from disorder. (Since Birth, I surely hope you were being sarcastic with your question. If so, then yes, I see the humor and irony in calling some of us more advanced and orderly.)
Bando, I don't need to go look up the second law of thermodynamics again. I am very familiar with it. All that I am saying is that on the surface, it states one thing as scientific fact. The macro theory of evolution also has some specific guidelines built into it. There is seemingly a conflict between what they assume. That is patently obvious and the reason why there have been many books written specifically on that subject. Is it an insurmountable dichotomy? No. There are many theories which would seemingly work within the parameters of both theories, agreed. The most common is what you mentioned, in that the influx of tremendous energy can fuel the process in a different direction. But that isn't what you keep saying. The fact is that there are many scientists who see a natural problem with our physical law cohesively fitting with our scientific theory. Others do not. But that isn't the point. The point is you attempt to blindly dismiss the issue entirely. I don't understand your obsession with the issue. It is very easy to say that I believe this that or the other. Such a position could be defended. But to say blanketly that there isn't any hint of conflict makes you look like a clown.
Lastly, it is you Mr. Pot attempting to call the kettle black. You are the one who makes an unfounded and controversial statement and then acts as if everyone should take it on the surface as entirely accurate. Try to support your position and then maybe we can get somewhere. But for you to just say that there isn't an issue, and that someone just doesn't understand the facts only gives you even more face paint and a honking red nose.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 16, 2007 14:23:09 GMT -5
No i wasn't being sarcastic. I see it as fewer, simple creatures --> evolution--> More, complex creatures. this would give more disorder, because there are mroe creatures able to do more things then the simple creatres can do. There's more disorder in a complex creature than there is in a simple creature.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 16, 2007 15:53:21 GMT -5
No i wasn't being sarcastic. I see it as fewer, simple creatures --> evolution--> More, complex creatures. this would give more disorder, because there are mroe creatures able to do more things then the simple creatres can do. There's more disorder in a complex creature than there is in a simple creature. OK, when you explain it that way I see your point, but that isn't at all the significance of either argument. The creatures themselves are becoming more and more advanced and developed. That is clearly a movement towards order. Yours is an objection I can honestly say that I have never heard. But you are right when you say that the more advanced creatures have greater potential to create disorder. But if you think about it, what that almost definitively means is that they have more built in order to begin with. You could almost liken it to potential energy.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 16, 2007 16:47:49 GMT -5
i guess i just don't see that. what makes you say that advanced and more developed creatures are more orderly. It doesn't really make sense to me. How is say a fox more in order that an amoeba? I'm not tryign to be condescending; i guess i'm just missing your point.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 16, 2007 17:44:01 GMT -5
Let's take this one by one, shall we:
I responded to your arguments in much detail. You then didn't acknowledge my responses, and then simply repeated what you originally had said. In addition, I provide much more in the way of evidence than you have (more on that later).
And let me say this again: you are misstating the second law of thermodynamics, which states:
You're saying that the second law is in conflict with natural selection. I'm telling you that you it's not, because the Earth is not an isolated system. This isn't my opinion, HiFi, it's a fact. You're whole line of thinking about this is wrong, you're either ignorant about the 2nd law or you're being dishonest about it.
This isn't a theory separate from the issue. It's an integral part of the second law. Why can't you understand this?
Talk about pot calling the kettle black. In my last post, I pointed and linked to references backing up my claims. The most you have done is say "some scientists think" or "there is debate on this issue". Really? Why don't you link to said scientists? Have any peer-reviewed literature I could look over?
Actually, this is my problem with your entire position. Bloviating off the top of your head is not the scientific method. You should be able to point to studies that cast doubt on evolution theory as we know it today. But you can't, because there aren't any. The only groups doubting evolution today are think tanks/advocacy groups (e.g. the Discovery Institute) and religious groups (e.g. Focus on the Family). There's not some army of biologists at UCLA making these claims, as you imply. Science is all about the evidence; if you're not going to bring any to the table, don't expect to be taken seriously.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 16, 2007 19:04:27 GMT -5
i guess i just don't see that. what makes you say that advanced and more developed creatures are more orderly. It doesn't really make sense to me. How is say a fox more in order that an amoeba? I'm not tryign to be condescending; i guess i'm just missing your point. Believe it or not, you have a structurally sound argument. I, and most people would probably somewhat equate order and complexity, but if we simplify it, is a grandiose 300 foot tall Redwood tree any more orderly than a field of grass and weeds? Using similar logic, is a free-thinking human being any more orderly than the random gathering of simple microscopic organisms accumulating in almost any standing water. I would say so, but I'm not really sure why. I will leave that argument to those in the science field out there.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 16, 2007 19:08:47 GMT -5
Stig, the incomplete fossil record is absolutely not a red herring. One more time, for evolution of the macro scale to have occurred, then there must have been millions upon millions of intermediary species, representing stages between reptiles and birds or between mammals and birds or between mammals and amphibians etc.... The fact is that we don't have one single fossil which we can identify as one of these intermediary steps. Does that dispove evolution? No. But to blindly disregard that the lack of just one such intermediary specia among the literally millions in our history at least causes us to question the theory is just plain silly. For the rest of you, the question of explosive periods such as the cambrian era, where life developed far more rapidly and in a much more diverse manner is an entirely different issue altogether. I personally don't think that it really creates any obstacle for evolutionary thought. What I do think it creates however, is a reason to ask "why?" What was so special in this period that life expanded far more rapidly that in other periods? Lastly Stig, your illustration of the new carnivores brought into New Zealand is interesting but really answers no questions. No one ever really denied natural selection on a minor scale. That would be idiotic. You take all of the cats in a county for instance and place them in a large pit with a handful of mice and see what happens. Pretty soon natural selection will take care of those mice. Now add a pack of pit bulls into the pit. My guess is that cats will soon be few and far between. Now add a couple of dozen alligators to the pit. I would think that might put a dent into the pit bull population. THe point is no one denies this type of change due essentially to culture shock. The question is where are the new creatures? You have given a great example of how speciation could be reduced, but none as to how it could flourish. I understand that 1000 years is not nearly enough time to notice much in the way of evolution, but that is not relaly the point. There's a difference between having creatures existing and having a fossil record. It's perfectly possible for a creature to have existed but leave no trace of its existence. Fossils are only preserved in specific circumstances, and are only discovered in even more specific circumstances. Many of the fossil records of human ancestors come from one very specific place (Oldupai Gorge), due to its unique combination of a dry lakebed and seismic activity. The lack of fossils elsewhere isn't an indication that no life has ever existed there, but instead a symptom of the unfavorable conditions with regards to fossil creation and preservation. It's like those conspiracy theorists who say that the Pentagon wasn't hit by an airliner on 9/11 because there aren't any immediately identifiable parts of an airliner in the photos of the aftermath. Their assertion of the lack of parts is true for the most part, but it's a complete red herring because you can't expect to find immediately identifiable parts after that sort of accident. A lack of physical evidence for a theory isn't a weakness in the theory when the evidence shouldn't be there in the first place. It's only a weakness when evidence that should be there isn't there, and that's not the case with evolution or with the 757 at the Pentagon. As for the New Zealand example, as you said you can't expect to have new species in 1000 years. Another important point is that the changes in species are hard to define. If you took the Tasmanian possum and compared it to a New Zealand possum, you'd probably fine some minor differences, some of which would be greater than you'd find when comparing one Tasmanian possum to another Tasmanian possum (I'm not enough of an expert to tell you what those changes would be). Would those changes make the New Zealand possum a different species? Probably not. But as possum generations go on, those differences are going to increase. At what stage would you classify the New Zealand possum as a different species? That's hard to tell. I do think that the differentiation between micro and macro evolution is simply a difference of scale, not concept. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution taking place many times over and over again. I admit that when I first examined the theory of evolution by natural selection, I found it difficult to believe that all of today's species had evolved randomly. I figured there had to be some sort of guiding hand or need-based aspect of evolution. However, I later realized that my skepticism was simply due to the fact that I was unable to grasp the immense amount of time over which evolution has taken place. I think a lot of evolution skeptics have that same problem - they simply can't bring themselves to accept that species evolved by natural selection because the amount of time over which the process has happened is beyond human comprehension. It was only after I accepted that fact that I was able to finally deny the need for (but NOT the possibility of) a guiding hand in evolution.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 16, 2007 19:49:02 GMT -5
Look, guys, I've read this thread and laughed my ass off.
I'd like to summarize it so far:
Hifi: opinion.
Others: citation of theories and other sources to disprove this opinion.
Hifi: Denial accompanied with recitation of his opinion.
Others: Further discussion with more recitation of sources.
Hifi: Repeated denial accompanied with slightly more emphatic recitation of his own opinion with flourishes of name-calling.
The lesson: When someone cares enough to post an uninformed (or at least un-evidenced) opinion on the off topic section of a forum that they exist in only because of the good graces of a few very understanding moderators, they probably aren't going to change that opinion - no matter what you tell them.
I would have thought that HiFi had "evolved" and stopped throwing around homophobic slurs. I guess he disproved that theory. Lock this up.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 16, 2007 22:36:01 GMT -5
why would you lock this thread, it's very entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 16, 2007 23:03:37 GMT -5
Ok fine. Keep at it. He's not going to change his mind.
I'll add this thought:
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 17, 2007 1:30:27 GMT -5
He's not going to change his mind. There's something very entertaining about watching somebody who you don't like insist on continuing a debate where they have been soundly beaten. The funny thing is that the Georgetown contingent of this board quickly came to a consensus on what happened (evolution is true, it's impossible to prove or disprove God's involvement) despite what initially appeared to be some big disagreements. It was all very civil and intelligent until the outsider came in and started shooting his mouth off.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 17, 2007 2:04:16 GMT -5
I would think that this is a better response.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 17, 2007 12:51:48 GMT -5
He's not going to change his mind. There's something very entertaining about watching somebody who you don't like insist on continuing a debate where they have been soundly beaten. The funny thing is that the Georgetown contingent of this board quickly came to a consensus on what happened (evolution is true, it's impossible to prove or disprove God's involvement) despite what initially appeared to be some big disagreements. It was all very civil and intelligent until the outsider came in and started shooting his mouth off. What in the hell are you talking about? If you will reread these pages you will notice at no point did I ever deny evolution and in fact said that there is much evidence for its existence. The original article posted by ed, merely called into question some of our beliefs in the field. That very fact should be enough to understand that we are dealing with a degree of uncertainty. That has been my point all along. I am not trying to deny evolution. Nor am I saying we shouldn't study it since we haven't perfected our formula yet. My only gripe is when what are theories about how or why something happened are presented as unyielding facts. That is how we got off on this thermodynamics tangent. And that is something which bando still doesn't seem to get. My only point in that regard is that some think there is a contradiction between evolutionary theory and the second law of Thermodynamics. Again, I am not saying nor have I ever said that the two are incompatible. But to deny that it is at least an issue worth discussion is just plain silly and yet bando insists on doing that very thing. A quick google of "evolution and the second law of thermodynamics" yielded 5 pages of results addressing the very topic. Most did defend the position of compatiblity but some did not. That much is irrelevant. My point is proven by the very fact that so much has been devoted to the topic. I surely hope this clears things up.
|
|