THE SUN IS GOING SUPERNOVA!

[Captain Bolivar 0]

Anyway, the main problem with the theory of evolution is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution is a process where complexity is gained (in general). Even if we were created by an intelligent being and not by evolution, a greater complexity would have been gained. According to your original argument, even the construction of us by a higher being would also violate the second law of thermodynamics because of the added complexity as the second law states that the universe lessens in complexity.

Edited March 18, 2004 by Captain Bolivar

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

But the second law of thermodynamcs would not be broken as entropy would technically be kept as there is order in chaos that it cannot be predicted.... add the chaos theory to things...

[Captain Bolivar 0]

No offence but.....

 

HUH?

[Xeroc 0]

No offence but.....

 

HUH?

Maybe I can help, The main proof for why it doesn't violate the second law is that when for example, a computer is made, complaxity is gained, but energy is used up in the process (by breaking down sugars in the computer technician's body) into simpler and more random and uniform states - increasing the overall enropy (or randomness) of the universe.

[Captain Bolivar 0]

Yep I totally agree with that statement. However, I'm not sure if it is the same statement that weareborg was trying to make.

[TSonofvulcan 0]

but evolution states that we IMPROVE but the universe does not. Eventually it is agreed by both parties that the universe will eventually run out of usable energy. This is contratry to evolution.

[Captain Bolivar 0]

but evolution states that we IMPROVE but the universe does not. Eventually it is agreed by both parties that the universe will eventually run out of usable energy. This is contratry to evolution.

It is NOT contrary to evolution. When the universe runs out of useable energy, we will no longer be able to live. If there are no organisms that are living, none can reproduce, and if none can reproduce, then evolution cannot occur CONTINUE to occur. This means that if the universe runs out of useable energy due to entropy (which it will unless something beyond our understanding restores the useable energy) then evolution will stop. Nobody ever said that evolution can never stop occuring. Nobody ever said that live will never end. Evolution can only occur when there is useable energy because evolution depends on life which depends on useable energy. I cannot make this simpler. If you don't get it now then I shall stop trying. Evolution (if the theory is true) occurs now because for the MOMENT there is useable energy.

[SpocksBrain 0]

but evolution states that we IMPROVE but the universe does not. Eventually it is agreed by both parties that the universe will eventually run out of usable energy. This is contratry to evolution.

It is NOT contrary to evolution. When the universe runs out of useable energy, we will no longer be able to live. If there are no organisms that are living, none can reproduce, and if none can reproduce, then evolution cannot occur CONTINUE to occur. This means that if the universe runs out of useable energy due to entropy (which it will unless something beyond our understanding restores the useable energy) then evolution will stop. Nobody ever said that evolution can never stop occuring. Nobody ever said that live will never end. Evolution can only occur when there is useable energy because evolution depends on life which depends on useable energy. I cannot make this simpler. If you don't get it now then I shall stop trying. Evolution (if the theory is true) occurs now because for the MOMENT there is useable energy.

ev·o·lu·tion

n.

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

 

The process of developing.

Gradual development.

Biology.

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

 

If the universe is losing energy, and becoming more random, how can a life form be becoming "more complex or better"?

 

Evolution can only occur when there is useable energy because evolution depends on life which depends on useable energy.

 

If evolution depends on life than where did the first life form come from?

Edited March 23, 2004 by SpocksBrain

[pittykitty 0]

In 5 days if you do not meet my demands MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Same typical Nemesis that I know at STSF.net. ::laughs like one of the Simpsons' characters.::

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

technically acording to newton's law of energy conservation, energy is not created or destroyed... It cannot run out...

It just that all matter is in kinetic form instead or potential...

[Captain Bolivar 0]

If the universe is losing energy, and becoming more random, how can a life form be becoming "more complex or better"?

 

If evolution depends on life than where did the first life form come from?

You say the universe is losing energy? Bam! That would violate another law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe (overall) is just turning to heat energy. (the amount of energy is still the same, just in a different form) Heat energy is vitually useless except to keep things nice and toasty. To turn it into useful energy, you would have to use more energy that you would get out of it. In fact, organisms help turn enegy into heat (thermal) energy because as you may have noticed, the human body pumps out a good deal of heat. We pump out alot more heat that any bacteria I know of. Our complexity increases the causing of heat, so we are actually adding to the entropy of the universe. Complexity, also does not violate this because it isn't the universe overall that is gaining complexity, just a small part (a few living organisms). The second law of thermodynamics says that the universe lessens in complexity OVERALL. I SAID OVERALL. HEAR THAT AGAIN: OVERRRRRRRALLLLLLLLLLLL!

 

I also said that evolution depends on life. I never said that life depends on evolution. However, the forming of the first cell itself was a form of evolution because the molecules acheived a state which allowed them to persist longer in their given environment.

 

Just because evolution depends on life does not mean that life depends on evolution. It's the same for a child who depends on his mother. The mother does not depend on the child. Dependency is not always a two way street.

[SpocksBrain 0]

If the universe is losing energy, and becoming more random, how can a life form be becoming "more complex or better"?

 

If evolution depends on life than where did the first life form come from?

[glow=navy]You say the universe is losing energy? Bam! That would violate another law of thermodynamics. The energy in the universe (overall) is just turning to heat energy. (the amount of energy is still the same, just in a different form)

Losing energy might have been a bad way of putting it... sorry. There is a loss of potential energy and the growing amount of kinetic energy (as WEAREBORG stated), adding to the overall disorder of the universe. This is why I brought up the fact that the whole perpose of the theory of evolution is that things evolve to get better and more complex, which still, in my opinion, contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

 

I also said that evolution depends on life.  I never said that life depends on evolution. However, the forming of the first cell itself was a form of evolution because the molecules acheived a state which allowed them to persist longer in their given environment.

 

You seem to be thinking in circles, if evolution depends on life to happen, how did life itself come into being since life supposedly spawned from evolution?

 

Even the scientist Stanley Miller had tried to recreate the formation of amino acids from the "Primordial soup" that life apparently came form, he evntually succeeded after weeks of work to create organic compounds using electricity. However, a small percentage were actually amino acids and the rest were tar and other compounds poisenous to all carbon based life!

[Captain Bolivar 0]

Okay, I can see you might have taken that as circular thinking. If evolution depends on life, then how can the first cell formation be thought of as evolution if there was no life.

 

When amino acids evolved into the first cell it wasn't even living. It was just a combination of molecules that had a propensity to stay intact and in some manner (perhaps of the face of a crystal) form a copy of itself.

 

So at 0 you have no life then evolution occurs to create life

The first cell or a replicating combination of molecules is point 1. From point on it replicates but becomes slightly more complex in the process. This evolves the thing in question to point 2. Then to point 3.... to 4 and 5 and 6 and so on. From point 0 to 1 there is an exeption because the fundamental process of evolution relies on the random combining of molecules. From each point after that (a point is a generation) evolution relies upon procreation (or replication) or the organism.

 

It is the manner of evolution that requires replication that I was saying requires life to exist. Not the first kind. I did not clarify that... cause as you can see it took quite a bit to do so. I was merely a difference in the kind of evolution. There are many kinds. Social life can evolve. The planets surface can evolve etc. Those kinds of evolution do not require life either. It was just one definition of evolution (one type) that I was refering to.

[SpocksBrain 0]

I can see your point, still, the whole process is very theoretical, just like creation is (argruably) theoretical. You can choose to believe the current order of the universe was created, or it just happend by accident, I've chosen to believe in the former which has always been more believable for me.

 

I respect your thoughts, though, because I can see that you think before you post and have strong opinions, which is a marvelous thing when you read some of the other things people post in this forum :huh:

[ussacclaim 0]

[ By your logic there are many things that violate the second law.  One example would be the construction of a computer.  Many chemicals and materials and involved in the process.  The final result is a complex machine (we are complex machines) that has been formed from various matierials such as metals (we are formed from various materials such as protiens).  Since it is obvious that computers exist we can say that evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.[/glow]

I think they meant that things naturally progress toward that. The computer just didn't show up, man had to make one.

 

On another note, the sun won't go nova or do anything that would destroy the Earth. I've seen several Biblical references (which is good b/c that's the only reliable source we have fof the future) so I'll bring one to your attention as well

 

Psalm 37:29

 

So the Earth won't be destroyed so don't worry!

 

(Any other Biblical questions can be PM'd to me if you have any since I like helping people answer them)

[Captain Bolivar 0]

I respect your thoughts, though, because I can see that you think before you post and have strong opinions, which is a marvelous thing when you read some of the other things people post in this forum

You believe in creation. I believe in evolution. Both are possible, and neither can be proven. Just argued endlessly. So, I respect your belief as well.

 

I myself do not disclude "creation", but I do think that if creation did take place then that creation involved the creation of the processes that would assist life (ie: evolution) Again, that is a theory as is everything else when it comes to the questions of life.

 

It's been fun debating with ya!

[SpocksBrain 0]

I respect your thoughts, though, because I can see that you think before you post and have strong opinions, which is a marvelous thing when you read some of the other things people post in this forum :blink:

You believe in creation. I believe in evolution. Both are possible, and neither can be proven. Just argued endlessly. So, I respect your belief as well.

 

I myself do not disclude "creation", but I do think that if creation did take place then that creation involved the creation of the processes that would assist life (ie: evolution) Again, that is a theory as is everything else when it comes to the questions of life.

 

It's been fun debating with ya!

We should get an award for the cleanest, and most mature debate :)

[TSonofvulcan 0]

yes we should! <_< Of course, I am sometimes open to the thory that God may have used the Big Bang to create us but I really don't beleve we were monkeys. :unsure:

[Valeris 2]

Heehee, I hate monkeys. I cannot believe that I evolved from one of them. (Yes, I believe in creation).

 

By the way, has anyone here seen episode nine of Carl Sagan's series, Cosmos?

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

nope, valeris, I haven't

I think that the universe has many mysteries to solve...

I think that We have big problems with the universe...

Consider that the fabric of space time may destabilize any time....

All I can say is the universe will never be fully revealed

[Valeris 2]

Probably so, BORG. Everyone has secrets.

[Data 0]

Yeah I think is about correct.  So we will have to get our behinds outta here in less than 5 billion years.  If we manage that we might have a good 25 billion years left in the universe.  I say 25 billion years because there is some evidence that the universe could theoretically end in that time...

Universe has at least 25 billion years left

Without the Universe, what existed? Does this mean that there is no such thing as infinity? Actually, we could go on forever discussing the concept of infinity. (no pun intended)

Edited April 1, 2004 by Data

[digifan 0]

Whatever the case I know one thing - I ain't gonna be here to witness the main event. I do know it will take eight minutes for us to know when life on Earth will come to an end since this is how long it take for light to travel from the sun to the Earth.