10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

page: 10
47
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: theCheddar
The "closed system" you speak of isn't just the Earth, it's the Solar System, and further, the Universe. The Sun will continue to provide the same amount of energy to the Earth, basically until it burns itself out.


Do you know 100% that the universe is a closed system? Either way it's a big misunderstanding with entropy. The earth receives energy from the sun, and that is the primary reason life exists here and evolution is possible. Entropy may apply overall to the universe, but that doesn't mean it will apply equally to all systems at the same time. You said it yourself. The earth is cooling, the sun is on limited time. Entropy DOES apply, it just takes a long time, and longer in systems that receive energy externally like the earth system. This is why entropy doesn't affect evolution. Energy is constantly being added to the system and this directly negates (temporarily) the effects of entropy.
edit on 2-4-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not saying it CAN'T be used to explain biological phenomenon, I'm saying that's not the intended purpose of Physics. The intended purpose of Physics is to describe the constants in the universe in order to understand how the universe works.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Physics is a branch of fundamental science, not practical science.[42] Physics is also called "the fundamental science" because the subject of study of all branches of natural science like chemistry, astronomy, geology and biology are constrained by laws of physics,[43] similar to how chemistry is often called the central science because of its role in linking the physical sciences. For example, chemistry studies properties, structures, and reactions of matter (chemistry's focus on the atomic scale distinguishes it from physics). Structures are formed because particles exert electrical forces on each other, properties include physical characteristics of given substances, and reactions are bound by laws of physics, like conservation of energy, mass and charge."



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: theCheddar

I'm still not following you. You appear to be saying that Physics can't crossover into Chemistry or Biology due to semantical reasons.

Your own definition is disproving your point by the way.


...because the subject of study of all branches of natural science like chemistry, astronomy, geology and biology are constrained by laws of physics,[43]



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

And I understand that. I can't say what goes on beyond what I can see here on Earth, but I CAN say that tomorrow when I wake up, the sun will still be shining, providing the Earth the same amount of energy it gave us yesterday.

There's not much outside of our solar system that affects us directly, aside from the things we don't understand. But even if we did understand those things, we'd create equations to explain them as constants...

You have to take the "closed system" example of a laboratory and expand that to work with our world. We can say the lab is like the solar system. The Universe would be like the world outside the lab. We have the constants of our controlled environment: gravity, energy from the sun, etc...

The best argument for our world being a controlled environment is that outside forces, such as intergalactic comets or solar flares, are phenomena we can observe before they actually affect Earth.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't explain it any better for you than the actual definition of physics. If you can't understand the difference between scientific fields, I can't help you. Your line of thinking is pre-enlightenment.

Here's another excerpt from that wiki:

"Physics aims to describe the various phenomena that occur in nature in terms of simpler phenomena. Thus, physics aims to both connect the things observable to humans to root causes, and then connect these causes together."

It's like how Mathematics is a prerequisite to Physics, but Physics isn't Mathematics. Physics is a prerequisite to the natural sciences, but it doesn't make those natural sciences Physics.

wavefunction.fieldofscience.com...

"Some sciences are more unruly than others. Here's a parable to illustrate what I mean. Imagine that when the first life form appeared there was a superintelligent freak. If this freak had had a complete knowledge of the laws of physics, what could it have predicted? Quite a lot. All atomic nuclei consist of neutrons and protons, and the number of protons determines each element's chemical nature. Knowing this, the freak could have predicted all the elements that could possibly exist, along with their respective characteristics. Suppose that it also knew all the laws of biology, including the "central dogma," which explains how genes are expressed as proteins. Even so, it could not have predicted the existence of giraffes, nor even the fact that my brother and I share only half our genes. Both of these are evolutionary accidents. If it had not been for random mutation there would be no giraffes, and my brother and I might have shared all our genes, as male bumblebees do. Biology is not like physics."
edit on 2-4-2015 by theCheddar because: to try to explain the concept better



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: theCheddar

Then you need to work on your explanations then. Definitions aren't the end all be all of explanations.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: theCheddar
"Some sciences are more unruly than others. Here's a parable to illustrate what I mean. Imagine that when the first life form appeared there was a superintelligent freak. If this freak had had a complete knowledge of the laws of physics, what could it have predicted? Quite a lot. All atomic nuclei consist of neutrons and protons, and the number of protons determines each element's chemical nature. Knowing this, the freak could have predicted all the elements that could possibly exist, along with their respective characteristics. Suppose that it also knew all the laws of biology, including the "central dogma," which explains how genes are expressed as proteins. Even so, it could not have predicted the existence of giraffes, nor even the fact that my brother and I share only half our genes. Both of these are evolutionary accidents. If it had not been for random mutation there would be no giraffes, and my brother and I might have shared all our genes, as male bumblebees do. Biology is not like physics."


This assumes that evolution is random. For all you know, every action in the universe is preordained from set laws and equations that we may be unaware of. When the first molecule bumped into another molecule, the way that happened could have started a LONG chain reaction of events that lead us today. OR it could all be random. That remains to be seen.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But for all you know it is completely random.

From the article:

"The problem is that there is nothing in the nature of these molecules that dictates that their presence should have been uniquely determined. "

That's just a single example. But as soon as you have a single example which does not work in your concept, you must start looking at other concepts... anomalies don't help your cause.

The point is, all scientific fields aren't physics. They may be bound by the laws of physics, but they're still not physics.

Look, I don't disagree with your ideas, just that the reasoning behind one of the ideas is faulty.
edit on 2-4-2015 by theCheddar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: theCheddar
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But for all you know it is completely random.


That's the thing. We don't know. I don't make assumptions on things that we don't have evidence to make valid predictions for, and frankly this is something we don't have a definitive answer for. There is still another possibility that God is directly controlling literally every molecule movement in the universe. Who knows?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, there could very well be a God in charge, which would eliminate the need for science all together, but you're getting away from the point...

Anyhow, nice thought provoking post.
edit on 2-4-2015 by theCheddar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: theCheddar
There's not much outside of our solar system that affects us directly, aside from the things we don't understand. But even if we did understand those things, we'd create equations to explain them as constants...


Evolution doesn't happen throughout the solar system, so it doesn't really matter. Evolution occurs on earth, so in that regard, entropy does not affect evolution because of the constant source of energy. Also it's worth mentioning that there is a lot that can affect the solar system. Don't forget, the sun is one star out of a hundred billion + that rotates around the center of the milkyway. Even things like the sun moving "north" and "south" of it's mean revolutionary path causes extra radiation and other factors like increased space debris, which absolutely affects life on earth and has in the past numerous times.


The best argument for our world being a controlled environment is that outside forces, such as intergalactic comets or solar flares, are phenomena we can observe before they actually affect Earth.


How so? In a controlled environment I'd expect such things to never pose a threat to begin with.





new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join