reply to post by OldThinker
I'm glad you asked these questions, OT. Take notes, this will be on the final.
Doesn’t evolution violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which states that energy can be converted from one
form into another, but it can neither be created or destroyed? YEP!
Not sure where this idea comes from. All life on earth is continually supported by one thing which gives us all our energy either directly or
indirectly, the sun. As life goes on, energy radiates from our planet, effectively being lost, but we gain more energy from the sun than we loose. The
sun itself has a limited supply of fuel however and will eventually run out. Because of that, evolution does not violate the first law.
On a second note, the first law doesn't even apply because evolution is an open system. Conservation of the first law will only be kept if you are
dealing with a closed system.
Doesn’t evolution violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy decay? The energy available for useful work in a functioning
system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant. Structured systems progress from a more orderly, more complex, state to a
less orderly, disorganized, and random state. YEP!
No because life is just a thing called organic chemistry. Complexity and largeness of living organisms is a direct result of the second law, entropy
in chemistry. Change in a organism occurs when a circumstantial mistake is made. The mistake is either good bad or neutral. Most bad mistakes kill the
organism, but neutral and good mistakes remain. Given time, 3 billion years, mistakes will produce the complexity and variety that we see in life
today.
Doesn’t evolution violate the Law of Biogenesis that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind?
No and I HAVE to call you obscenely ignorant on this one. Evolution is the theory that
explains the diversity of life,
not where it
comes from. The explanation for how life starts is abiogenesis, a totally different science. If you look up abiogenesis you'll find that the first
forms of life were not fully alive, similar to a virus (MRSGREN). The first forms didn't "perpetuate" in a reproductive sense at all, they just
feed and grew- then they broke apart forming new individuals. But that is
not the Theory of evolution at all.
Also if you are going to use that you need to define the word "Kind". creationists refuse to define it.
Is there not any evidence in the fossil record to substantiate evolution?
Hasn’t the fossil record failed to document a single, verifiable "missing link" between ape and man? Maybe some neat drawing, but nothing
verifiable right?
There is no missing link, there hasn't been a missing link in human evolution in
40 years!
Human evolution
Ken Miller is a catholic scientist.
Apart from that, just about every single thing in the fossil record is a piece of evidence supporting evolution. The fossil record is limited by the
fact that requires very particular circumstances to produce fossils. You go on a holiday and have one long experience, doing all sorts of things with
friends. You end up with photos representing snapshots in time of only an instance. With out memory of the holiday, it would be very difficult to put
the photos in order. That's what happens with transitional forms (all forms are transitional by the way, including us). Look up archaeopteryx. It's
an
avian dinosaur and an ancestor of modern birds.
Cont-
[edit on 3-3-2009 by Welfhard]