[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Kazan
Blaise: in correct

No. Unless, of course, you have some way of proving that this world we live in is real, is true... or even for proving that there is any reality, any truth at all.

You can't. You have to take it on faith that it is real, it does matter, it's not a dream or something implanted into your head or created a bazillion years old five minutes ago... or, you do not claim that this world is real at all. And the point of my post was to see if you were claiming that, or if you were merely being selective in your judgement and targeting religion exclusively, even though the matter of 'truth' is exactly the same - at the very least, in terms of provability, which is where it counts.

[Kazan]

Blaise

Nihilism
Axiom
Faith

all Dictionary.com

trying to argue against logic and science as the basis of things by trying to use Nihilism is self-defeating and is more importantly: a straw man

[icespeed]

okay. my wrong, i got the terms wrong. however, that doesn't mean my assertation in invalid, it just means i cant be bothered to look up the references (specially since i have to go to class now.)

besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by icespeed
okay. my wrong, i got the terms wrong. however, that doesn't mean my assertation in invalid, it just means i cant be bothered to look up the references (specially since i have to go to class now.)

besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.

Well, to be fair
a) they apply to different fields (IIRC)
b) evolution doesn't imply additional complexity - if a simpler organism has an advantage, then it can form the 'next stage'

[Goober5000]

True.  And then there's the argument that sometimes disorder in one part of a closed system can lead to order in another part.  I think the classical example is a room full of randomly distributed blocks, where shuffling the blocks in one corner leads to a settling of blocks in another corner.

(I present the above without proof.  Now Kazan, if you were fair-minded, you should challenge me to go find the reference for it. )

But if evolution is impartially random, it should reach a point at which further disturbance would collapse the system under construction.  Tornado in a junkyard.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
True.  And then there's the argument that sometimes disorder in one part of a closed system can lead to order in another part.  I think the classical example is a room full of randomly distributed blocks, where shuffling the blocks in one corner leads to a settling of blocks in another corner.

(I present the above without proof.  Now Kazan, if you were fair-minded, you should challenge me to go find the reference for it. )

But if evolution is impartially random, it should reach a point at which further disturbance would collapse the system under construction.  Tornado in a junkyard.

I think I've heard of that theory (or something similar).... where evolution and the general balance of life has a natural instability, but where subtle changes (biological or behvioural) can shift that entire balance and destroy the ecosystem.  Can remember the name of it, though....

*quick think*

Actually, I think it may be 'Gamblers Ruin'.  Based on inherent trends in random systems - i.e. the gambler always loses in the end.

EDIT - couldn't find anything on the web that was too enlightening (and I'm going to be now) - I know Gamblers ruin does describe biological populations, not sure if it also applies to evolutionary theory.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by icespeed
okay. my wrong, i got the terms wrong. however, that doesn't mean my assertation in invalid, it just means i cant be bothered to look up the references (specially since i have to go to class now.)

besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.

your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed --

i'll just state the most important flaw

the second law only applies when Work (mass * force) is not being done

a reference would be nice from goober

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Kazan
a reference would be nice from goober

Thanks.  But, er, after spending several minutes looking for the example, I can't find it, and I've got a meeting I've got to go to in eight minutes.  So you'll just have to take what I said on faith.

(Apologies - I'll try to look it up this evening. )

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Then what is your opinion, Setekh, on things such as the Catholic belief in purgatory, or the Calvinist belief in predetermination? Or the rejected apocryphal books, such as the Apocalypse of Peter? If you are certain that the leaders of the Church were divinely guided when choosing the books of the Bible at the Council of Nicea, were they also divinely guided when developing the concepts of predetermination and purgatory? And if the writers of the accepted Gospels were divinely guided, who guided the writers of the rejected books?

Well noted. On points of doctrinal development, I don't feel a need to point to divine guidance, as mis-interpretation of God's Word is not excluded by the canon being divinely chosen. (Btw, I subscribe to many of Calvin's beliefs, though most people's understanding of them is very simplistic: most commonly, that predetermination excludes the necessity of human responsibility. It's more complex than that, but I'm no expert in the area, so I will refrain to discuss it for now.)

As for the rejected books: I have no objection to the possiblity that the rejected books were written with the best intentions of their authors and contained great points of knowledge and wisdom. I am also willing to admit that some of them may have contained content inspired by God (as with the point of Old Testament prophecies - literally hundreds of prophecies, as inspired as what we call the twelve minor prophets, were excluded from the Hebrew Scriptures). The explanation I offer is that God did not feel a need to include those books. Perhaps they added nothing to the New Testament canon. They did not carry the life-changing power that every other book that is now in the New Testament exhibited. Those are sufficient grounds, I think, to be assured that the Canon can stand up to questioning.

[Goober5000]

Found a link.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441

[Setekh]

Nice.

The main argument that I've found against evolution is the one of irreducible complexity - if I spelled it right. I haven't heard that refuted competently by proponents of evolutionary theory yet. Is anyone game?

[Kazan]

Setekh: i would like to know how one would pose that argument in the first place... the only way i can image that is if they over extend the definition of evolution

[micro]evolution [what darwin described] = mutations occur, when a mutation occurs it can help the organism survive better, in this case it is promoted by the individuals with it breeding more prolifically since they're healthier - if the mutation harms them the opposite is true


i don't see how you could argue irreducible complexity on this one... that makes no sense....  although redefining it to make it more attackable happens constantly and when this happens that could possibly open it up to an irreducible complexity arguement

[Setekh]

Ah yes, of course. Well, I have no problem with micro-evolution, and I think it still happens today - that's pretty plain. But you raise a good point about redefinitions of evolutionary theory. Can you clarify for me (if you know better, if not I'll go look it up), if that is what Darwin described as evolution, who came up with the theory that all life began from no life, which evolved into single-celled organisms, which evolved into multiple-celled, which...?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by icespeed
besides which, evolution itself is a dodgy idea- the second law of thermodynamics, note use of word 'law', tells us that a system decreases in complexity as time goes on. but evolution says that the system increases in complexity, thereby directly contradicting the law. explain that.

Icespeed, I'd like to think that I'll give you a more thoughtful answer than Kaz will. He's in one of his tantrums again, and you can't get him to be reasonable when he's like this. So, I'll step in. Here goes:

I'm going to have to say that your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics (aptly summed up as 'entropy increases') is flawed. You're in good company though: the thermodynamics argument is used by opponents of evolution regularly (dare I say religiously), without ever examing the subject.

What the Second Law of Thermodynamics says is "entropy increases". At first blush it would apear that such a thing does not allow for evolution. However, if you follow that line of reasoning, you realize that its a false analogy: such reasoning says that you cannot be alive, because a fetus cannot grow into a person. Arguably, the transition from a single celled zygote to the multicellular, specialized organism you are today would violate the idea that 'systems decrease in complexity'.

The proper interpretation of the Second Law (IE: the one that agrees with, and predicts, facts in the observable universe) is that the net entropy of a system increases. Take, again, the example of the zygote-to-fetus development process. As previously stated, this is a system that is becoming increasingly more complex and ordered over time. However, the process produces waste products, such as fatigue toxins and heat. These things, the system must shed. These things are the entropy of a system. No matter how much order such a system achieves, in the end, not only does the system break down, but it has created more entropy in the universe than there would have been had it never come to be.

Another simple way to remember the second law is "you can't break even". In other words, no matter how much order you feed into a system, you always get back more entropy in the end.

[jdjtcagle]

sorry to interrupted but I thought somewhere someone explained that evolution there as never been any evidence of a the (oooo...cant remember) I think it's called the third stage of evolution.

Edit: They have never found a middle species. Only
the species after it that was formed

[icespeed]

yeah. what jdjtcagle said.

we got told yesterday, that scientists have an amazing ability to rationalise all and any data that comes in from experiments, even if that data is flawed.

thanks mik.
I was thinking in terms of the entire earth system for the second law thing... i suppose radiation and stuff comes in from the sun, so that's not really a closed system. but if you take the entire solar system, (discounting the occasional comet) as a closed system, where there is no external input of energy, then wouldn't evolution still be against the second law? of course you'll correct me if im wrong.
and kazan, i really don't get that ''work"thing, so assume im a poor stupid girl and explain it.

[Setekh]

It's true about the scientists, I think, which I think is unfortunate. It's further unfortunate that that statement usually goes unnoticed, so the conclusions of scientists are taken as canon. But science is constantly revising itself - anyone who has kept a serious eye on it for a decent measure of time will recognise that.

Originally posted by mikhael
No matter how much order such a system achieves, in the end, not only does the system break down, but it has created more entropy in the universe than there would have been had it never come to be.

I think is what cements it though, icespeed. Evolution can continue to progress whilst introducing further entropy into the solar system, so the second law is still preserved. Isn't it?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by icespeed
I was thinking in terms of the entire earth system for the second law thing... i suppose radiation and stuff comes in from the sun, so that's not really a closed system. but if you take the entire solar system, (discounting the occasional comet) as a closed system, where there is no external input of energy, then wouldn't evolution still be against the second law? of course you'll correct me if im wrong.
and kazan, i really don't get that ''work"thing, so assume im a poor stupid girl and explain it.

But the solar system is not a closed system either. Matter and energy enter the solar system and leave it constantly.

Lets use a thought experiment to illustrate the issue. Another way to state the Second Law is "order is temporary". Lets imagine you have a machine that can directly measure entropy. Being a good scientist you take a current reading, so that you have a baseline with which to compare later measurements. For argument's sake, lets say that the reading for right now (Time t=0) is 0 entropy.

Now somehow, you also have a machine that lets you travel forward in time really quickly. Let's jump you forward about... oh... ten minutes. The entropy measurement you take might be higher, or it might be lower. Entropy scores that are lower than your baseline are written as negative numbers, while higher scores are positive numbers. We jump you forward over time, and measure the entropy at each stop.

No matter what happens, no matter how far into the future you go, the total sum of all your positive and negative entropy values will always be a positive number. In fact, the farther you go, the larger that sum will get. There is never enough negative numbers (decreases in entropy) to balance the positive numbers (Increases in entropy).

[icespeed]

ye-e-e-es... so do you mean when the world ends (whichever way that might happen, armageddon, big comet, nuke, whatever) because the result of all that evolution has now been extinguished, this causes a rise in entropy and therefore the second law is not violated?

so... does that mean the second law can be _temporarily_ violated?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by icespeed
we got told yesterday, that scientists have an amazing ability to rationalise all and any data that comes in from experiments, even if that data is flawed.

Originally posted by Setekh
It's true about the scientists, I think, which I think is unfortunate. It's further unfortunate that that statement usually goes unnoticed, so the conclusions of scientists are taken as canon. But science is constantly revising itself - anyone who has kept a serious eye on it for a decent measure of time will recognise that.[/B]

Side note, since Steak addressed it too. The fundamental bedrock precept of science is that science is a process, not a static goal. Scientists are wrong all the time. This is a good thing. The scientific method addresses this:
First, form a hypothesis.
Second, use the hypothesis to make a prediction.
Third, create an experiment to test the prediction.
Fourth, perform the experiment.
Fifth, no matter what the results of the experiment, repeat it. Analyze all the data over and over again.
Sixth, if your experiment failed, re-examine steps 1 thru 4 to try to find the source of the error. USe the scientific method to deduce this error. If your experiment succeeded, give all your data to someone else and let them repeat it so you have verification.

Now, even after all of that, science can still be wrong. Eventually someone comes along and creates a new experiment that causes an old theory to break down. Thus, the old theory is revised, and the system continues on.

Science is not a set of rules and laws that explain the way things work. Science is the process of understanding the way things work. Science is observation first, explanation second. The process of rationalisation and revision and constant re-testing is what keeps the whole thing honest and growing and trustable.