Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    This statement shows again that you do not know what entropy is. Your statement is like saying temperature needs a source of heat - it makes no sense.

    You think entropy is the mysterious thing that life can reverse. That is nonsense.

    Entropy increases or decreases just like temperature increases and decreases. Cooling something does not reverse temperature, it just decreases the temperature. For instance if you look at a steam system the entropy is increasing or decreasing depending on the point in the cycle that you are. You should find a chemical engineer and he could help you out on these concepts.

    It is true that every process increases the entropy of the universe. However, in open systems like the earth, life, the solar system, steam systems or your refrigerator the entropy increases or decreases in different areas of those systems.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,236
    Are you talking about Abiogenesis(or something similar) or evolution?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enoc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    I think he is talking about biochemistry in general.

    We all know that water is important for all life and also plays an important role in the humanity body.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_water
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    strawman.
    that's what you would LIKE for it to be about.
    actually it's about the question of why didn't science ever correct this alleged mistake.
    no.
    you know, i was banned for saying the following to hercules rockefellar, but:
    "i have no idea what ayala does or doesn't think."
    all i know is what was printed in a respected source.
    even after being blasted by letters, science STILL hasn't corrected said article.
    could it be that science is just plain tired of playing the retraction game?
    yeah, well i apologize.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    huh?
    why?
    you are 0% responsible for my posts randwolf.
    i type these words, not you.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    aww, now that was perfect.
    i miss you too !

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i was taught in school it was by a slow gradual process.
    this article says that isn't the case.
    if the scientists don't know, then how can you expect me to know?
    i can give you some opinions, that's about it.
    i don't think you "believe", i think you are convinced.
    and you would be wrong.
    no one, anywhere, at any time, has ever explained to me how a god could make this happen.
    the implications of a god are absurd.
    yes indeed, believe in me or burn forever ! !
    yeah, well, YOU might want to worship something like that, but I don't.
    here's a smootch for your kindness . . .
    * smootch *
    alright, enough of that.
     
  11. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You've been corrected on this nonsense endlessly. Again, in a nutshell, all evolutionary changes are gradual. Some changes occur over millions of years, and some over mere thousands of years. Some slowly, some abruptly in comparison. But gradualism is always a feature of evolution.

    This issue originally emerged in the context of discussion related to Punctuated Equilibrium and was actually put to bed by the champion of that theory, Stephen Jay Gould, who recognized that a significant misunderstanding had occurred. From Wikipedia:

    Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism. This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sediments, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".

    Can someone please explain to me how keeping this leopold fellow around actually serves any reasonable purpose anymore? All he does is spout nonsense while conveniently forgetting that he has been definitively corrected on it multiple times before. I understand that some of you might like to practice your skills from time to time in order to stay sharp, but leopold hardly presents anything beyond the challenge of resisting one's baser instincts. If you want to hone your skills I would seek out people who offer arguments that actually force you to do some real thinking

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Leopold has a bee in his bonnet about this one obscure argument, probably due to whatever these apparent, but notoriously unstated, beliefs of his are that cause him to deny evolution. But on other science topics, he seems to be able talk sense. So I think the key with Leopold is to avoid putting 50p in his slot and then he is fine.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    leopold,

    Did you read the letters that Science published?

    Don't tell lies, leopold.

    You know what Ayala was quoted as saying by Lewin in Science. You also know what Ayala told NAIG (and which is published there). If you'd bothered to do any extra research at all, you'd also know that Ayala is a dyed-in-the-wool "evolutionist".

    If you're still confused, I'll tell you what he thinks, seeing as you place so much value on his authority (which, by the way, is not how science should be done). Ayala thinks evolution occurs by natural selection, just as Darwin said. Ayala is not a Creationist.

    They published the blasting letters.

    What are you claiming that Science retracted?

    It depends on what you're calling "slow". "Fast" in geological terms is very slow indeed by most other measures. If speciation is evident in fossil strata separated by 100,000 years, say, would you call that fast or slow?

    Do they say they don't know?

    If not God, then who is the Creator, leopold? Angels? Pixies? Aliens? Do we live in computer simulation?

    If you believe evolution is false, then you must have some alternative in mind. If not, then you should admit that there's no better alternative than evolution, as far as you know.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes, that is what i was taught.
    this article says differently.
    also, no one EVER presented ANY kind of documentation on how long a species takes to "turn into" a completely different genome.
    your statement of a length of time has no basis in lab results.
    yes, people says it "takes millions of years", but it's nothing but hot air RAV.
    we have nothing to go by, not even the record itself.
    well then, maybe YOU can explain why science never corrected said article.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    strawman.
    the letters received by science specifically state how important this conference was
    amazing isn't it?
    lewin was treated the same way.
    a prolific science writer that became an editor for one the most respected names in science.
    then he pens this piece on a conference.
    all of a sudden he's the biggest liar since Pinocchio.
    ad hom.
     
  16. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I get bees in my bonnet all the time. But if I ever act in a manner that even remotely resembles the sort of intellectually dishonest bullshit that we're seeing here, again, I expect someone to permaban me.
     
  17. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Gould himself addressed that. It was simply a misunderstanding that he didn't intend.

    See, we're going around in circles. As such every single point you make, and every single question you ask, can be addressed simply by referring to a previous discussion. For example: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vi.134919/page-35#post-3083382

    Finally, I literally can not believe that the following comments of mine in that 2013 thread:

    turned out to be false. Really.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Leopold it may be ad hom but if so it was only due to replying to a question about you from someone else. If you read it carefully, you might notice it is in fact a sort of qualified defence of your continued presence on this forum.

    ….even though you are a bit bonkers on this topic……….

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    The least known time, for a mammal, is 8000 years. I.e. make a new species, not able to have fertile off springs with the sill separately living specie it evolved from in 8000 years.

    You either, lie or don't recall or did not read an earlier post of this thread at: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/denial-of-evolution-vii-2015.144083/page-15#post-3265128
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    not all of them.
    i was more interested in finding one from ayala.
    about what?
    what HR did?
    will he did it and for the reason i stated, but it was in reference to gould not ayala.
    okay, now what?
    you will?
    james, this is a very unscientific approach you are taking here.
    the best you can hope to do is post some of his select writings on the topic
    i am placing zero value on ayalas authority or i would accept the NAIG reference.
    he sure didn't feel that way at the conference.
    yes.
    i am not claiming science retracted anything.
    i am claiming science never corrected its alleged mistake.
    the letters themselves point out how important this conference was, so you can't use "it was a minor event" or some such.
    we aren't talking about speciation.
    these gaps represent major changes in genomes, and not at the species level.
    they certainly didn't know when they taught me.
    the ideas presented at the conference hasn't been confirmed.
    i would call that "not knowing".
    AAAAAGHGGGGHHHH ! ! ! ! !
    i honestly don't know james.
    the idea of abiogenesis is as absurd as some kind of god in my opinion.
    the concept of life may well be out of our league.
    BTW, i'm only interested in clearing up this little snafu with ayala.
    there is a reason science refuses to do that james, and THEY are the responsible party.

    i am not saying it's false, i'm saying we have a problem with ayala.
    none that i know of, unless you want to get into quantum physics.
    the grand unification theory must include life somehow, it seems so anyway.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    how am i being intellectually dishonest RAV?
    you made the statement so i assume you have something to prove it.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    There is no problem with Ayala.

    How many years and we are still arguing about this absolute BS!

    There is no evidence that they have refused to "clear it up". There is nothing to clear up.

    If you want to know what Ayala says, then read his books. Read his papers and studies.

    And stop ignoring the fact that even the article you keep trying to fall back on to disprove evolution supports evolution.

    Stop quote mining from creationist sites.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455

    well then, break that circular reasoning RAV and post the issue where it apologizes to all those people lewin misrepresented.
    apologizes for those LIES lewin told.
     

Share This Page