I don't think the sun is an issue, more like the "Walle" senario (only realistic).

 

I don't think the sun is an issue, more like the "Walle" senario (only realistic).

But the expanding/exploding sun will be the ultimate and uncontrollable fate for this rock so my point is we will need to find a new place to start polluting sooner or later.

Lefty

 

I'll worry about it in 100 million years from now. For now I need to clean my house.

 

You have never observed it to happen.

You mean to get to a higher energy state, not higher organization. No matter how hard and hot the sun shines, it does not organize anything.

Effectively zero. You heard of the often cited example of an explosion in a print shop producing a dictionary.

How does it? Most changes are for the worse, because there are more ways to go bad than to change for the better. And from the macro point of view, the environment is changing along with others in the biosphere.

Ratch, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. I'm not talking about elevated energy states. The natural world is full of examples of entropy going in the direction of greater order/complexity/organization at the expense of energy. Chemical reactions, crystal growth, creation of more complex elements in the sun and evolution of life are all examples of this. We observe these things to happen all the time in every day life and scientist study this in great detail. Hey, how about a growing baby in it's mother's womb. Are you saying that is not an example of energy being utilized to generate greater order?

It's clear that you have never taken the time to understand the way that natural selection works. You criticize it with no understanding at all. Darwin clearly explains the way that natural selection is able to keep the improvements and discard the junk that variations and mutations generate. It is so basic and easy to understand. Take the time to read his work carefully, It takes time, but it is worth understanding the great ideas and wealth of experimental evidence that Darwin presents.

 

He made note of a jungle flower,that at the time that pistel if I
have the right name,in a( hurry)thhat would take 2-3 inch
reach to get to the nector,just a note.Great logic,a scientist
would Id a special moth that only could reach the nector.
Showing Darwins logic once again. More later.

 

steveb,

Ratch, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics.

I don't think so. At least not basic physics. Why do you say that?

The natural world is full of examples of entropy going in the direction of greater order/complexity/organization at the expense of energy.

No it's not. See below.

Chemical reactions, crystal growth, creation of more complex elements in the sun

Those things are examples of set changes that will happen a certain way and always happen that way. Chemical reactions will always repeat themselves. We rely on them to be predictable. Crystal growth is also completely predictable and will never change the shape into which they are formed. Same with thermonuclear reactions. They all follow laws and react predictably according to conditions that already exist.

...and evolution of life are all examples of this

Tilt, you have not proved that.

Hey, how about a growing baby in it's mother's womb. Are you saying that is not an example of energy being utilized to generate greater order?

Another example of a set process started in motion and producing a set result according to the DNA pattern already existing.

It's clear that you have never taken the time to understand the way that natural selection works. You criticize it with no understanding at all.

That is not true. I have thought long and hard about it.

Darwin clearly explains the way that natural selection is able to keep the improvements and discard the junk that variations and mutations generate.

I said it before. Natural selection insures that a organism will be the best it can be. It does not explain how one type of organism can change into another wholly different type of organism.

It is so basic and easy to understand. Take the time to read his work carefully, It takes time, but it is worth understanding the great ideas and wealth of experimental evidence that Darwin presents.

Easy to understand and impossible to conclude that it explains how all the different types of biolife came into existence, and integrated themselves with each other.

Ratch

 

Ratch, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. I'm not talking about elevated energy states. The natural world is full of examples of entropy going in the direction of greater order/complexity/organization at the expense of energy. Chemical reactions, crystal growth, creation of more complex elements in the sun and evolution of life are all examples of this. We observe these things to happen all the time in every day life and scientist study this in great detail. Hey, how about a growing baby in it's mother's womb. Are you saying that is not an example of energy being utilized to generate greater order?

It's clear that you have never taken the time to understand the way that natural selection works. You criticize it with no understanding at all. Darwin clearly explains the way that natural selection is able to keep the improvements and discard the junk that variations and mutations generate. It is so basic and easy to understand. Take the time to read his work carefully, It takes time, but it is worth understanding the great ideas and wealth of experimental evidence that Darwin presents.

"It takes time, but it is worth understanding the great ideas and wealth of experimental evidence that Darwin presents."

I bought a new copy of On the Origin of Species about a year ago at a local book store in soft cover for around $4-5 I think. I suspect the copyright must have lapsed for such a low retail price. Anyway it was something I had always meant to read but never got around to it.

I found it somewhat difficult to read, he writes in a very slow and deliberate way that takes a lot of patience to get through, at least for me. I usually read it in the car waiting on the wife's shopping errands so it took a long time for me to get through it. But it left no doubt in my mind that he had wonderful observation skills and his logic was very convincing. He did not try to forceable convince you of his theories but rather just sucks you into them. So not a fun & enjoyable read but there was no doubt that I was reading something important and profound. The man was gentle with his ideas as they required little convincing of their truths.

Lefty

 

loosewire,

He made note of a jungle flower,that at the time that pistel if I
have the right name,in a( hurry)thhat would take 2-3 inch
reach to get to the nector,just a note.Great logic,a scientist
would Id a special moth that only could reach the nector.
Showing Darwins logic once again. More later.

Yes, a moth with a long proboscis. Well within the mutation range of a moth. But when all is said and done, it is still a moth.

Ratch

 

I found it somewhat difficult to read, he writes in a very slow and deliberate way that takes a lot of patience to get through, at least for me. I usually read it in the car waiting on the wife's shopping errands so it took a long time for me to get through it. But it left no doubt in my mind that he had wonderful observation skills and his logic was very convincing. He did not try to forceable convince you of his theories but rather just sucks you into them. So not a fun & enjoyable read but there was no doubt that I was reading something important and profound. The man was gentle with his ideas as they required little convincing of their truths.

Lefty

I have very similar opinions.

 

Tilt, you have not proved that.

No I haven't. Other people have. By the way, you haven't proved any of your ideas. You simply make statements that are completely contrary to the well-established scientific facts and working theories. I'm simply trying to guide you away from your own erroneous thoughts. It's not my job to bring all the information and proofs to you. It's impossible since you make so many erroneous statements. For example you said species splitting has never been observed. Well, it has! So now I've got to go dig out the references about this. Then when I show you the evidence you will still argue about it. It's a waste of my time. All I can do is ring the alarm bell that you are way off course and need to steer yourself back on a rational path, and stop steering other people over the waterfall with you.

That's really all I'm going to say about it. I generally don't debate people on this subject any more since it never goes anywhere. For whatever reason, most people can't wrap their brain around Darwin's very simple ideas that are not only clearly plausible, but backed by evidence. My first post in this thread sums it up. His ideas have withstood the test of time. Prediction from his theory were later proved true. Does Darwin's work answer all questions. No! No scientific theory ever did that. People have extended his ideas greatly and will continue to do so. Mysteries will continued to be answered and science will keep advancing.

Leftyretro made a comment about some of the difficulties of reading the Origin of Species, which I agree with. For anyone who wants a concise summary of the modern scientific understanding of evolution theory, I recommend the following book.

"Why Evolution is True", by Jerrry A. Coyne. This will clear up most misinformation given by Ratch, or even by myself, since I'm not an expert on this subject either.

 

Speaking of creationism and science, I've always wondered around the "Law of Conservation of Energy". According to this law, energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.

Thanks.

 

Speaking of creationism and science, I've always wondered around the "Law of Conservation of Energy". According to this law, energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed.

Thanks.

However in comes: "Entropy – energy broken down in irretrievable heat." and therefore no longer availble for future transformations?


Lefty

 

However in comes: "Entropy – energy broken down in irretrievable heat." and therefore no longer availble for future transformations? Lefty

I find it amazing that energy, whatever its initial form, always tends to finally end up being heat energy (or part of it) where it's lost in the surrounding environment and cannot be contained at 100%, at least so far.

Thanks.

 

Even heat isn't irretrievable, if there is a cold sink. It is when everything is a uniform temperature that Entropic Death occurs.

 

The universe seems to be an "isolated system", containing a constant total amount of energy that keeps changing state/form and has the tendency to reach a certain equilibrium.

Thanks.

 

steveb,

No I haven't. Other people have.

No they haven't. They fooled themselves into thinking they have. Those proofs don't stand up to scrutiny.

You simply make statements that are completely contrary to the well-established scientific facts and working theories.

Which ideas are you talking about?

I'm simply trying to guide you away from your own erroneous thoughts.

I understand that, but consensus agreements don't do it. Neither do unexplained happenings that go against the observable. Specifically the principle that things organize themselves from disorder.

It's not my job to bring all the information and proofs to you.

I acknowledge that. Also it is my right to reject any statements you make without any substantial proof that they are correct.

It's impossible since you make so many erroneous statements. For example you said species splitting has never been observed. Well, it has! So now I've got to go dig out the references about this. Then when I show you the evidence you will still argue about it.

I am not sure what you mean by "species splitting". Does it mean that a new species occurs, like a new breed of dog? Or does it mean a dog got changed into a donkey. I certainly believe the former, but not the latter. Certainly I will challenge any material you provide if I don't think it is correct or applicable to the point in question.

It's a waste of my time. All I can do is ring the alarm bell that you are way off course and need to steer yourself back on a rational path, and stop steering other people over the waterfall with you.

I don't see myself "off course". I am willing to back up what I say and let others decide for themselves if I am right.

That's really all I'm going to say about it. I generally don't debate people on this subject any more since it never goes anywhere. For whatever reason, most people can't wrap their brain around Darwin's very simple ideas that are not only clearly plausible, but backed by evidence. My first post in this thread sums it up. His ideas have withstood the test of time. Prediction from his theory were later proved true.

From what little I have read of the reference provided by thingmaker3 of Darwin's work, I could not find any substantial disagreement so far. That may change. Thus far in his work, I have not come across any mention of a new type of life form developing from a presently existing one. I only see explanations of how different species of the same type can form. I have no problem with that because there is a built-in ability of all creatures to mutate and change within a reasonable amount. The trouble is that some folks try to extend that explanation and idea far beyond what is possible. Can't blame Darwin for that.

Leftyretro made a comment about some of the difficulties of reading the Origin of Species, which I agree with. For anyone who wants a concise summary of the modern scientific understanding of evolution theory, I recommend the following book.

Yes, he has a very dense and tedious writting style. He really does not get to the point in a timely manner, and includes details that do not pertain to the point he is trying to make. Maybe many of the things he is talking about were unknown or strange during his time, but sometimes I felt that he was presenting things he avered were new that I had known for a long time.

"Why Evolution is True", by Jerrry A. Coyne. This will clear up most misinformation given by Ratch, or even by myself, since I'm not an expert on this subject either.

One cannot not live long enough to read all the material that has been written for and against the subject. I could just as easy cite a reference that backs up my thinking also.

Ratch

 

I could just as easy cite a reference that backs up my thinking also.

Ratch

I'm not citing a reference to back up my thinking. I'm providing a reference that concisely summarizes the modern state of scientific thought on evolution. I do this for those who want to learn, but don't have a lot of time.

I don't expect this to be useful to you. You apparently can't even get through the title of Darwin's work. The title is the "Origin of Species" which implies that he is in fact talking about the way that Natural Selection can produce new species. You don't even know what the definition of "species" is since you think that a new breed of dog is what Darwin is talking about.

Anyway, by directing people to valuable scientific information. I can avoid debating your nonscientific point of view, without the ethical dilemma of allowing you to spread misinformation.

 

steveb,

I don't expect this to be useful to you. You apparently can't even get through the title of Darwin's work. The title is the "Origin of Species" which implies that he is in fact talking about the way that Natural Selection can produce new species. You don't even know what the definition of "species" is since you think that a new breed of dog is what Darwin is talking about.

Darwin should not be the one to define what a species is. The dictionary says it is a taxonomic classification below a genus and capable of interbreeding. Just about all the basic forms of animal life were known in his time. Sure he found some lizards and turtles on a island that are found nowhere else, but that does not mean they evolved. They are still lizards and turtles.

Anyway, by directing people to valuable scientific information. I can avoid debating your nonscientific point of view, without the ethical dilemma of allowing you to spread misinformation.

I am afraid the cat is out of the bag. Your point of view and mine are widespread throughout the civilized world, and quite available to anyone who cares to see them.

Ratch

 

The dictionary says it is a taxonomic classification below a genus and capable of interbreeding.

So now you looked it up. Very good, there's hope for you. Previously you said the following.

Does it mean that a new species occurs, like a new breed of dog?

Since all breeds of dogs can readily interbreed, they are not a different species as your previous statement said.

I am afraid the cat is out of the bag. Your point of view and mine are widespread throughout the civilized world, and quite available to anyone who cares to see them.

True enough, but sometimes we act because it is the right thing to do, even if we know that no significant practical outcome will result.

 

steveb,

Since all breeds of dogs can readily interbreed, they are not a different species as your previous statement said.

Yes, I was thinking of subspecies. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It still does not diminish my assertion that one form of life cannot change to another.

True enough, but sometimes we act because it is the right thing to do, even if we know that no significant practical outcome will result

Sort of like nuclear proliferation, isn't it?

Ratch