What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Entropy.

How so?

 

[syo]

How so?

Can't you tell?

 

[gnostic]

The current model does not give due justice to the single unique substance that is needed to make everything in known cells work.

Why must there be just a “single unique substance”?

Water is essential for life, but water by itself isn’t organic. I am not denying the importance of the role that water plays, but water aren’t what make cells work.

Physical traits are passed on from generation to generation, through the gene of how the four nucleobase compounds are sequenced in the nucleic acids of RNA or DNA, or both, and not by water.

The water molecule don’t dictate whether this trait or that trait get “inherited” genetically to the offspring.

Likewise, there are over 500 different types of amino acids, but only 20 of these amino acids are naturally occurring that are building blocks of many types of proteins.

Proteins have many different functions, and they work together with other biological macromolecules (the others being nucleic acids and carbohydrates), for the cells to function.

Among the functions of proteins, especially for complex multicellular organisms, they served as structural function, like all the tissues that make up the human skins, muscles, connective tissues, bones, nerve tissues, the glands and organs, etc.

Then there is the role of proteins along with DNA or RNA, that play part with reproduction, sexual or asexual processes, and what type and how cell division occur.

Plus DNA replication cannot occur without proteins.

And just as important is the chemical functions of proteins.

For instance proteins are responsible for producing electrochemical impulses, that transmit these electrical impulses from neuron to neuron that cause locomotive function of muscle movements, or cause the heart muscles to pump blood throughout the body.

Another example of chemical function of proteins, proteins as enzymes, are catalyst for chemical reactions in metabolisms. Metabolism is essential for organisms to sustain life.

One of these basic metabolisms, is converting food into energy sources (eg carbohydrates).

These varied functions that all organisms have, cannot occur without proteins.

Likewise there are many types of carbohydrates, which are also important to life, too many to list. Carbohydrates played roles that water cannot.

 

[gnostic]

Entropy.

How so?

Can't you tell?

I believe that Subduction Zone want you to be more specific.

Others have use this “entropy” trump card before, but what Subduction Zone learned is that they don’t know anything about what they were talking about.

They ended up they don’t understand thermodynamics, don’t understand biology, don’t understand chemistry. They only made fools of themselves, whenever they choose to bring up entropy.

Will you fare any better, syo?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't you tell?

I can that is why I asked. See the post just above mine.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If religions are just to remain “religion”, then that not so much a problem.

But religion also often interfere with other spheres of humanities, such as social and cultural interaction, such as politics, laws and education.

And when you compare religious influences in these areas, they often fall short, because religions relied too much on customs and dogma.

Humanities and humans are lot more complex than religion, and cannot be defined by religious rules.

Don’t get me wrong, religions have its places in history, and in ancient times, religions were something that help civilizations to get together as communities with shared goals.

There are indeed some positive aspects to religion to the societies, but history have shown that there have been negative aspects, which lead to biases, brutal persecution, oppression and corruption, especially when religious people get hands on powers, political power, legal power, military power.

There is nothing worse than when people use religion to oppress and persecute people. Politics plus religion have given religion bad name.

Religions are not immune to corruption.

I appreciate your open mindedness. Yes as you say religions have helped civilisations get together. Why was that? I would say that at that time people obeyed the religious laws of love and justice.

But as time went on the priests and clergy used it for political and personal ambitions. Once they controlled the peoples minds, they eventually taught them to hate and wage wars and persecute men of science. They were in fact and still are to this day teaching and twisting the original teachings of the religion to suit their ambitions.

Religion always taught love and unity. All the Holy Books teach the same. But the clergy have taught the opposite and tarnished and disgraced the name of religion. Christ taught love 2,000 years ago not to fight the papal wars or the inquisition. He taught brotherhood not to have the Crusades. He actually prophesied Muhammad but Christians turned to their priests for guidance instead of Christ so we’re misled.

So God, because man corrupts religion over time, renews it from age to age. But closed mindedness and attachment to their clergy has prevented religion from being upgraded and updated so now many see it as a pariah, of no use for our times, and are dumping it.

In the religion of Baha’u’llah, He has abolished priesthood because of these corruptions.
So today we have Baha’i go assist humanity to unite and in the future there will be another Teacher perhaps interplanetary harmony and maybe a woman.

 

[syo]

I believe that Subduction Zone want you to be more specific.

Others have use this “entropy” trump card before, but what Subduction Zone learned is that they don’t know anything about what they were talking about.

They ended up they don’t understand thermodynamics, don’t understand biology, don’t understand chemistry. They only made fools of themselves, whenever they choose to bring up entropy.

Will you fare any better, syo?

You know what entropy is and you still believe in evolution?

 

[syo]

I can that is why I asked. See the post just above mine.

You know what entropy is and you believe in evolution?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed. I have argued that the existing evidence for evolution rules out the Abrahamic deity, and the argument is not based in the theory having been proven by that evidence. The argument allows for falsification of the theory. The problem for the Abrahamic theist is that his god is already ruled out by that evidence even if it has to be reinterpreted in the light of a falsifying find, which could only be understood as the work of a deceptive intelligent designer who went to great pains to deceive man. The most likely candidate for this role isn't even a deity, and if the intelligent designer were supernatural, it's not that god. Their devil, however, would not be ruled out by identifying the deceit.



Agreed again, but how many such people are creationists? People who get a good education in the sciences do so because they enjoy and respect the sciences, like you and me. As kids we had chemistry sets and erector sets. We sat glued to the TV for space missions and watched the science for children shows. We liked RadioShack and its science kits. Later, we subscribed to Scientific American or Sky & Telescope. We ate up the biology, chemistry and physics in high school. Many chose the sciences professionally. Most continued reading science after graduation, which is where I learned the science I didn't learn in my formal education (earth science, quantum science, cosmology). I still watch everything on Nova that's scientific. And How The Universe Works.

Such people are very rarely creationists. What you usually get are clownish caricatures like Ham and Hovind and their Internet disciples making these arguments, which have no chance of persuading a scientifically literate critical thinker, but instead, do the opposite when the scientific incompetence of the apologist becomes evident. I occasionally refer to the concept of ethos in the philosophy of argumentation (rhetoric), which is the metamessage the speaker or writer sends along with his explicit argument (logos) - does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like. If your ethos is shot, you have little chance of accomplishing anything but your own rejection whatever you say.



Agreed for a third time. It is sufficient to demonstrate that such paths are consistent with known chemistry, meaning that the process is possible. There is no duty to show that any given path that works was the one that led to LUCA. This is analogous to human evolution, where we may never elucidate exactly which extinct hominids were ancestors and which were branches from man's line of descent that died out. Creationists will argue that the theory is unsound for lack of these pathways, but that is incorrect. The theory doesn't specify them, just their mechanism.

You have sussed out my meaning. Only those believers with a genuine knowledge of science have the means to actually discuss it and most of those I can think of do not waste time arguing against science, but instead are practicing it. None of the creationists I have ever encountered on the internet were of that caliber even as laymen. They are more ideological and taking up a crusade using any means they can muster to dispose of knowledge that makes them uncomfortable and contradicts the doctrines they have chosen to view as the right way to understand their own religions. That is the current state of my position based on the evidence I have observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know what entropy is and you still believe in evolution?

I understand entropy which is why I know that it is not a problem for evolution. I also know evolution to be a fact. You are working on mere belief.

The problem is that you appear to have a very low level of science education. You do not understand the concept of entropy.

 

[syo]

I understand entropy which is why I know that it is not a problem for evolution. I also know evolution to be a fact. You are working on mere belief.

The problem is that you appear to have a very low level of science education. You do not understand the concept of entropy.

Guess again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Guess again.

Then support your claim. Explain how entropy, a concept that you clearly do not understand, would hinder evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For me the primary interest isn't in the actual subject as much as it is in creationsts' behaviors. Just the other day in another forum I showed "dad" (remember him) how the old-earth, evolutionary timeline was used in gas and oil exploration. His response was literally to just say that the old-earth, evolutionary timeline had no use.

I'm fascinated by such utterly bizarre behavior.


Yep, yet creationists will keep repeating them ad nauseum. It's all they've got.

I am coming to the conclusion that it may be best just to address the flawed reasoning even if the points are literally the ancient dead for others anyway. Then leave it at that, unless I am in a mood to deal with the insistent denial. It is an interesting phenomenon though. I agree with a certain fascination myself.

It is all that I can conclude, given how many times I have read "If man descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" or similar nonsense. It must be the best that can be found to attack science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know what entropy is and you still believe in evolution?

If entropy thwarted evolution, it would have thwarted life long before then. It doesn't and it is only the misapplication and misunderstanding of it that makes some think it spells doom for what can be found in all the observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am coming to the conclusion that it may be best just to address the flawed reasoning even if the points are literally the ancient dead for others anyway. Then leave it at that, unless I am in a mood to deal with the insistent denial. It is an interesting phenomenon though. I agree with a certain fascination myself.

It is all that I can conclude, given how many times I have read "If man descended from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" or similar nonsense. It must be the best that can be found to attack science.

LOL! Just remember, the proper response to "why are there still monkeys" when someone asks is to say "Because you are still here". Cladistics is a more correct classification system and one that biology is slowly switching over too. By cladistics people are monkeys.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If entropy thwarted evolution, it would have thwarted life long before then. It doesn't and it is only the misapplication and misunderstanding of it that makes some think it spells doom for what can be found in all the observations.

Hey!!! Let him dig his own hole

But you are right of course. The terribly misunderstood version of "entropy" that creationists try to use would make life itself impossible.

Evolution of course does not break the laws of thermodynamics. Those opposing evolution are using a broken version of those laws.

 

[syo]

Then support your claim. Explain how entropy, a concept that you clearly do not understand, would hinder evolution.

No. You support your claim.

 

[syo]

If entropy thwarted evolution, it would have thwarted life long before then. It doesn't and it is only the misapplication and misunderstanding of it that makes some think it spells doom for what can be found in all the observations.

Cute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. You support your claim.

I asked you to support yours when you made your first comment here. Did you not understand that? As to supporting my claim all that I can say is:

I do not know of any way at all that entropy could hinder evolution. To me it makes as much sense as if when asked what could refute evolution said "gravity". I do not know how gravity could hinder evolution either.

So how could entropy hinder evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cute.

No, accurate. It is rather apparent to all that you have no clue. You have been asked reasonable questions. You ran away.