Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

a reply to: Barcs

Entropy and 2nd law of thermodynamics are the huge creationist arguments these days, which is why I think this hypothesis is bunk. I guess we'll see.

LOL
No
That doesn't make it bad science.

Anyway, this is the first I've ever heard of creationists using entropy as an argument. Either way, it doesn't concern me. And it you're actually interested in science rather than debunking creationists, it shouldn't concern you either.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
That doesn't make it bad science.

Anyway, this is the first I've ever heard of creationists using entropy as an argument. Either way, it doesn't concern me. And it you're actually interested in science rather than debunking creationists, it shouldn't concern you either.

My statement was accurate. I didn't say that made it bad science or that either concept is wrong, but it raises suspicion, as creationists constantly misuse those ideas to promote their agenda.

Now please answer my question in this post about natural selection and prove that it's simple suspicion and that you actually know what you're talking about. Making big fonts and bold letters over the word no doesn't make your point stronger. And to think you were talking about folks acting childish before. I'm asking specific questions about the science and so far they have been dodged or ignored.

So once again. Why, specifically, are DDAO hypothesis and natural selection mutually exclusive?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: flyingfish
Yawn... Very boring.

If your reason for hating reality is that you find it boring, then you are free to maintain your present extremely tangential relationship to it.

In any event I was not addressing you or your semantics.

a reply to: Barcs

It's simple..Ask the creationist how we have developed from a single cell into a fully functioning, multicellular human being in just 9 months. If this does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then how does the same thing occuring over a 3 billion year time period violate the same law?

a reply to: flyingfish

Yes you were, you were arguing against the use of the word Darwinism like others in this thread. I yawned because its completely de-railing the conversation.

So because I said step aside Darwinism in the title instead of "physicst supports Darwin theory of natural selection with new hypothesis" which is both misleading and false, I am now a creationist misreprenting this idea for my own agenda, instead of a philosopher extrapolating the implications of a new idea?

Get real and give me a break and stop being so shallow and small minded.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: flyingfish

Yes you were, you were arguing against the use of the word Darwinism like others in this thread. I yawned because its completely de-railing the conversation.

No... my argument has less to do with "neo-Darwinism" and more to do with using predatory publishers and quote mining as valid citations.
I was simply fact checking soficrow, who by the way started the argument, if your so worried about "de-railing the conversation" then why are you staring all his fallacious posts?

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
So because I usaid stepmasode Darwinism in the title onstead of "physicst supports Darwin hypothesis ofnanturalmselection with new thepry" which is both misleadong and false, I am now a creationist mosreprenting this idea for my own agenda, instead of a philosopher extrapolating the implications of a new idea?

one, i have yet to see you prove that the title you just proposed (mockingly albeit) is a misleading and false one. i believe we are still waiting on you to flesh that out a bit.

two, dont post opinions on the internet if you dont welcome criticism. that should be right up there with pissing in the wind.

three, this isn't PHILOSOPHY. this is SCIENCE. learn the difference.

a reply to: flyingfish

If that is all you were doing then why did you begin derail by being so defensive?

a reply to: TzarChasm

It also has implications in philosophy re the determinism argument.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: TzarChasm

It also has implications in philosophy re the determinism argument.

thats a thread for another forum, i suspect.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The debate on determism includes many scientific theories and perspectives, including evolution and natural selection.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: TzarChasm

The debate on determism includes many scientific theories and perspectives, including evolution and natural selection.

this is the evolution forum. im not arguing semantics with you. start a thread in metaphysics and philosophy if you are so inclined.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No, I'm allowed to be philisophical about science as much as I want here. This is the origins and creationism forum. I dont see why some minor references Determinism or philohy in general shouldn't included every now and again.

Stop derailing. If it hadnt been for philosophy, Newton, Darwin & and Einstein would have gotten nowhere. Modern science owes everything to philosophy. We would still be in the dark ages thinking the world was flat.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: TzarChasm

No, I'm allowed to be philisophical about science as much as I want here. This is the origins and creationism forum. I dont see why some minor references Determinism or philohy in general shouldn't included every now and again.

Stop derailing. If it hadnt been for philosophy, Newton, Darwin & and Einstein would have gotten nowhere. Modern science owes everything to philosophy. We would still be in the dark ages thinking the world was flat.

i dont see how ddao has anything to do with determinism.

you have also failed to explain how ddao excludes natural selection.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It adds to the debate.

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: TzarChasm

It adds to the debate.

i agree with the philosophy and science thing, but i also sense where you might be going with this. determinism is a close affiliate of creationism. i have also seen instances where philosophy was used as a bridge in absence of actual supporting science to link two or more concepts.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
three, this isn't PHILOSOPHY. this is SCIENCE. learn the difference.

To be fair, there is very little science happening on ATS. It's not like you, TC, are going out between responses to check your experiments pertaining to the topic. Correct me if I am wrong on that!

I agree though, it is an important distinction to make, but I see very little actual science taking place. It's more philosophy about other people's experimental findings than ATS members setting up experiments of their own and discussing the results. At best, most just Google stuff.

I also think the title was in error, but not because of any insult to dogma. I think findings like this have much, much larger repercussions than one area of study.

The title generally defines the thread, especially because that is all most will read. Even if further posts are read, it tends to be skewed by the initial perception created by the title.

a reply to: Barcs

Incorrect. Earth is a closed system, it is not an isolated system and once again can be interpreted as both open or closed depending on the context and leasure of language.First, The earth is a closed system where materials cycle fron the lithosphere, the atmosphere,hyrdosphere,and biosphere. The strict defintion of a closed system is energy enters and leaves but matter dose not. Since space rocks adding material are not an everyday occurance,and the material added is extremely small, the earth is,considered a closed system. Im on a cell so id live to link some edu resources but unfortunatly i cannot. In the same way we are arguing about open and closed systems,this is the arugment applying to biology can entropy effect epigenetics? Im interested in this and will continue reading. Thanks brother

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: funkadeliaaaa
a reply to: Barcs

Simply put natural selection is too simple.

let us know when you win a nobel for proving that.

F# the OWO, F# the Nobel society, and F# the NWO.