does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics?

[kwikphilly]

LOL,,,,,,,very good Saved,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"On the Trail of the Entropy of the Mind"

All those tax dollars,huh?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

33 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

LOL,,,,,,,very good Saved,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"On the Trail of the Entropy of the Mind"

All those tax dollars,huh?

Well, somebody has to fund their research and they sure won't give it to fund Intelligent Design Creation Research.

[post]

On 5/3/2016 at 2:51 PM, Enoch2021 said:

Well as mentioned previously, to properly assess/evaluate whether there are Violations between one something and another something you MUST FIRST define the somethings; Ergo...

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...?

The Scientific Theory of evolution...?

so go for it.

as for the 2nd law, the most common definitions are already stated in this thread, and you're perfectly capable of finding a workable definition if those aren't sufficient for you. the most conclusive way to write a proof would be to use math. calculate the total entropy change of some step in what is called evolutionary process and show that it decreases. 
as for evolution, if you can prove that it violates the 2nd law, i rather think it's your business to be clear about just what you mean by that, not mine. 

i'm making no claims whatsoever on the subject. i'm just asking if anyone has shown that "evolution" violates the 2nd law -- not just "stated that it does" ? and please give that proof, if it exists. 

saying "the theory doesn't exist" because it doesn't fit your favorite definition of 'theory' doesn't prove it violates the 2nd law by any means at all; that's just misdirection quibbling about words, and has no relation whatsoever to thermodynamics. you can't solve a termite problem by folding your hands and saying "there aren't any termites; those are isoptera" -- your house is still being eaten, whatever vocabulary you want to use  

the mechanisms evolution claims to operate by are well known. if you can prove that they violate the 2nd law of thermo, then by all means, restate them. just calling them a fairy tale does not prove anything. 
 

[post]

On 5/3/2016 at 2:51 PM, Enoch2021 said:

Quote

anyone who could actually prove that the mechanism of evolution violates physical laws would gain a whole lot of money, grants, fame & power. 

1.  This is merely a Conjured Anecdote and a contrived "Procedural Argument" not a "Substantive Argument".

it's no more anecdotal & no less contrived than the assertion that people who believe in and/or study evolution and/or topics somehow related to it are solely motivated by hatred of God, money & notoriety. 
 

[Enoch2021]

On 5/4/2016 at 2:27 PM, post said:

 

so go for it.
 

So I ask for you to Clarify your Case by Defining:

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.....?  AND The Scientific Theory of evolution....?" and your response is..."so go for it" ??   

So you answer a question with the same question, eh?  We'll just take this overt "Dodge" as a tacit admission you don't know.

No worries, I'll start a New Thread here in a bit to see if anyone does know.

 

Quote

as for evolution, if you can prove that it violates the 2nd law, i rather think it's your business to be clear about just what you mean by that, not mine. 

How can I prove: A (evolution) violates B (2LOT), without having " A " Defined/Validated FIRST, pray tell ??

It's tantamount to asking....'Show Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragons violating 2LOT ??  
 

Quote

i'm making no claims whatsoever on the subject.

Well you're assuming the Scientific Theory of evolution exists.

 

Quote

saying "the theory doesn't exist" because it doesn't fit your favorite definition of 'theory'

I'm saying it; To REFUTE, simply post The Scientific Theory of evolution...?

And it's not 'my favorite definition' of "theory" ... It's what a Scientific Theory is for goodness sakes...

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Scientific Theories "Explain"... THE HOW (Mechanisms/Process).

Scientific Laws "describe"... The What/IS, often Expressed Mathematically (SEE: "DESCRIBE").

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

 

Would you like me to get these Notarized??  You could save some time and effort....Just ask a Random 5th Grade General Science Graduate, they'll tighten your shot-group.     

  

Quote

the mechanisms evolution claims to operate by are well known.

Sure, and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her Florist.

 

Quote

...just calling them a fairy tale does not prove anything. 

I'm not calling "THEM" anything,  I'm calling it -- "The Scientific Theory of evolution": a Full On Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon/Cinderella-esque:  Fairytale !!

To REFUTE, it's quite Simple... Post The Scientific Theory of evolution....?

Since you been asked to provide this simple request @ least 10 times on this forum by me personally and "Dodged" it every single time; well...your position is somewhat precarious....don'tcha think?  

 

regards

[post]

so... 

in a round-about way you're saying you cannot prove that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? 

that's what i've asked if anyone can do. 

if you can't, i'm not sure why you feel like you should be involved in this thread. 

((which is titled, "does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics?"))

[Enoch2021]

9 hours ago, post said:

so... 

in a round-about way you're saying you cannot prove that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? 
 

Well yes, in much the same way that I cannot prove that Invisible 3 Toed Gnomes aren't throwing pixie dust in a black hole behind the Crab Nebula creating dark matter.

Ya see, it's the Acme of Foolishness to even attempt to prove/disprove complete Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacy).

 

regards