The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[Mr.Obvious]

Hey trdsf, if you keep going with this conversation, could you ask him/her if (s)he thinks there are different proposed underlying mechanics and processes that govern what he calls micro- or macroevolution? And if so, what these are according to him/her? And if not, why proving these underlying processes and mechanics in a lab with bacteria (for example) can't count as proof for the theory of evolution?
I've been trying to get an answer to this question myself, but it seems like I'm not getting a reply.

[Qchan]

1) You and I both know that nothing can ever be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, but thanks for making empty promises to make yourself look better later. I really appreciate your intellectual honesty.

2) Additionally, You have frequently refused to so much as read the information I've given you.

3) I have no reason to believe you have looked at enough of the literature on evolution to actually know whether or not macroevolution has been proven. Unlike others on this forum, I believe that you genuinely think it hasn't been, and aren't just trolling.

4) I think you're just willfully ignorant. You sit there complaining that people aren't proving things to your satisfaction without doing anything to inform yourself, and you take information not being spoon-fed to you to be evidence that the information doesn't exist. Unfortunately for you, I am exactly anal enough to do just that.

Wow. You make some pretty hefty assertions.

1) The sun is hot. I can prove that without a shadow of a doubt. Water is wet. I can also prove that without a shadow of a doubt. Speciation is factual. It can be proven. Instead of making all of these wild assertions, why don't you present evidence that proves macroevolution is true. Show me a fossil record that shows one family of animal evolving into another family totally unrelated to its common ancestor. If the evidence is there, this task should be easy for you to do.

2) I've read it by briefly skimming over it. I told you I agreed with what you presented. There should be no argument here. I agree with the information you provided. I also told you it has nothing to do with macroevolution. Once again, I agreed with what you presented, but it doesn't support the thesis you're trying to present.

3) Well, if you had done any sort of research, you wouldn't need go and do research, now would you? However, you are going to do research, which shows me that, in fact, _you_ haven't looked at enough of the literature on evolution to actually know whether or not macroevolution has been proven.

4) Now you're just ranting. I made one simple claim. I said macroevolution is unscientific because it violates the scientific method. That is all I said. You, my friend, decided to show your "evidence", which you have admitted yourself, is nothing more than speciation. If you're going to prove me wrong, you need compelling information to do so. That's just the rule of logic. You don't need to spoon-feed information to me. You are assuming the evidence exists, but I'm telling you it doesn't. It's really just that simple.

Hey trdsf, if you keep going with this conversation, could you ask him/her if (s)he thinks there are different proposed underlying mechanics and processes that govern what he calls micro- or macroevolution? And if so, what these are according to him/her? And if not, why proving these underlying processes and mechanics in a lab with bacteria (for example) can't count as proof for the theory of evolution?
I've been trying to get an answer to this question myself, but it seems like I'm not getting a reply.

Different proposed underlying mechanics and processes? Can you go into a bit more detail about what you're asking me?

[PopeyesPappy]

He is asking you what keeps a series of small changes (micro) from turning a fish into an amphibian (macro).

[Qchan]

He is asking you what keeps a series of small changes (micro) from turning a fish into an amphibian (macro).

That's an excellent question!

Nobody knows!

[aitm]

I said ...... and evolution are unproven.

Evolution is so well established that to claim otherwise makes you a liar, a fool or an fucking troll. I am done with you.

[Desdinova]

Qchan, do you have vocal chords in your anus?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He is asking you what keeps a series of small changes (micro) from turning a fish into an amphibian (macro).

This happened way back yonder in time.

[missingnocchi]

3) Well, if you had done any sort of research, you wouldn't need go and do research, now would you? However, you are going to do research, which shows me that, in fact, _you_ haven't looked at enough of the literature on evolution to actually know whether or not macroevolution has been proven.

Just because I don't have a prewritten post containing all of that information doesn't mean I haven't read it previously, moron.

[Solitary]

Finally!  Solitary

[missingnocchi]

Oh... Guess I don't have to do all that after all

[trdsf]

Hey trdsf, if you keep going with this conversation, could you ask him/her if (s)he thinks there are different proposed underlying mechanics and processes that govern what he calls micro- or macroevolution? And if so, what these are according to him/her? And if not, why proving these underlying processes and mechanics in a lab with bacteria (for example) can't count as proof for the theory of evolution?
I've been trying to get an answer to this question myself, but it seems like I'm not getting a reply.

Yeah, but I felt obliged to reply civilly as he hadn't had a go at me yet.  It's my sweet and kind nature... and gives me time to get the acid pen out of its box and refill its reservoir, just in case.  :)

[Mr.Obvious]

He is asking you what keeps a series of small changes (micro) from turning a fish into an amphibian (macro).

Kind of... but not exactly. Perhaps I'm not getting my question across right, but that's I feel because Q insisted on making a distinction where there is none.
I'll try one last  time even though it doesn't really matter anymore, but I just want to see if I can form the question properly.

Qchan insists that micro- and macroevolution are different. According to real scientists, however, they are the same. They are both evolution, only looked at in a different timescale. Actually, the only difference one can point out is the difference in timescale. But the underlying principles and processes that micro- and macroevolution encompass are the same. The difference in timescale is not one that would therefore make them different processes. So finding proof of evolution in a laboratory, which Qchan coined as 'microevolution' and which he accepts in reality counts as proof for the theory of evolution. Yet, he insists that it is not proof of the theory of evolution because of his insisted claim that micro- and macroevolution are inherently different. If they were indeed inherently different he should be able to point out what underlying mechanics are different between the two and would make testing for one not proof for the other or 'the theory of evolution' as a whole. But he can't do this because they are the same phenomenon (only looked at at a different timescale).

Basically, what I was trying to do wasn't to get him to explain to me why I think little changes don't lead to big changes over time. What I was trying to do was point out that he must either offer a viable difference between the underlying mechanics of micro- and macroevolution, or accept testing of evolution in a lab as proof of the theory of evolution. As it stood now his argument was internally invalid. But now I'll never get an answer, though I don't think I ever would have.

Yeah, but I felt obliged to reply civilly as he hadn't had a go at me yet.  It's my sweet and kind nature... and gives me time to get the acid pen out of its box and refill its reservoir, just in case.  :)

You are an example to us all.

[trdsf]

You are an example to us all.

Trolls are really the same as grade school bullies.  Nothing pisses them off so much as being handled politely -- it inevitably drives them to do something that brings down the banhammer.  And it makes the times I've been forced to dispense with civility that much more impactful.

Whether that's being an example, or a practitioner of psychological warfare, I don't care to speculate.  :D

[SGOS]

Oh, I think they often degenerate, even without being treated with civility.  Some hold up better than others.  I think mods should have some way of accessing the troll's computer.  Hack it and make it explode while the troll is composing a post.

[SkyChief]

I apologize if this has already been brought up in the previous 7 pages of posts, but I found this explanation of why invoking The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been abandoned by creationists:

"A common argument against biological evolution is that the theory contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.  The second law says that disorder, or entropy, always increases or stays the same over time.  How then can evolution produce more complex life forms over time?  The answer is that the second law is only valid in closed systems with no external sources of energy.  Since the Earth receives continual energy from the Sun, the second law does not apply.


To claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics is also grounded in a misunderstanding of where the law applies.  Nobody has ever figured out how to apply the second law to living creatures. There is no meaning to the entropy of a frog. The kinds of systems that can be analyzed with the second law are much simpler."

http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-the-second-law