"Get over it."

Dan Melson's Sunday post up at Searchlight Crusade has several interesting items that are worthy of your attention, but its leading item really got me to thinking.  A lot.

Here's the website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Here's the news story: Couple Sues Operators of Evolution Site

Three words: Get. Over. It.

Evolution may not be scientific fact, but it is a scientific theory supported by as much evidence as relativity or quantum mechanics. It was formulated based upon observed evidence. It can be debunked at any time by facts which actually contradict it. We just don't know of any. It is true that it is only the best idea we have so far and that it is possible that we'll come up with something better some day. But thus far subsequent discoveries (in multiple disciplines, yet! Engineering. Mathematics. Physics. Genetics.) have strengthened and reinforced evolutionary theory and our understanding of it. The fershluggin' Catholic Church, of all the world famous stick in the mud institutions, accepts evolutionary theory as the explanation which best fits observed facts.

Get. Over. It.

(The fourth sentence, "Evolution may not be scientific fact," even understates Dan's case.  Actually, there is an aspect of evolution that is a fact.  Evolutionary changes occur in nature.  Period.  What the Theory of Evolution does is put together how these changes have worked together over the ages to produce what we see today, and this theory cannot yet explain every observation that is made.  But there aren't a lot of such "holes" in the theory, and anyway, "holes" hardly invalidate a theory.  Falsification does, and we know of no observed facts which contradict this Theory.)

Now, this is the sort of thing that I hesitate to say, because I have some very good friends who disagree with me, but I call 'em as I see 'em, and if I didn't, you'd have no respect for me at all.  Creationists and I.D. ("In Denial") proponents remind me, in two important ways, of political leftists:  they interpret facts and observations in such a way as to promote their beliefs, to the point of ignoring and attempting to hide facts which are difficult to fit into their worldview, and they (amongst themselves) repeat the same untruths over and over, long past the point where these untruths were disproved, until they are believed to be fact by most adherents and even convince some outsiders.  Examples:  "Bush lied us into war," and "the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution."

I am beginning to think that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (pseudo) argument will never be let go by some people.  Ever.  It matters not that their own argument would prove (if it were true) that reproduction would be impossible, even life itself.  I guess they just don't think that far—they go as far as is necessary to make the point they want to make and seem to stop there.  William A. Dembski, in his "law of conservation of information," basically recasts this old argument in new "information age" terms in support of I.D. 

I.D.ers will claim, as they have for years, that evolution is "only a theory," that "random chance" could never have produced what we see today, that there is precious little real oberved evidence that supports evolution, that no, or at most very few, "transitional" fossils exist, that speciation has never been observed, that evolution is not falsifiable, that it is an "atheistic" belief system or philosophy that is corrupting our society, and that non-evolutionists have been given "short shrift" in scientific journals through a system of prejudicial discrimination.  It's easy to debunk these statements, but they keep coming right back to them over and over again, recycling these until some new "scientific" discovery is made which they then co-opt as their newest rallying cry.

Rob and I have had some terrific debates over this issue, but I never have to make any point that others haven't made over and over again.

Now, please note carefully:  I said that Creation/I.D. proponents remind me of leftists in two ways only, not that they are similar to leftists, or that they are in any way leftists.  Actually, if I'm honest with myself, I could find instances where I've fallen into the same traps, if only because they're easy ones to fall into.  But there are people who occasionally fall into a trap, and then there are people who seem to live there. 

Also, I have a great deal of sympathy (or something like that) for Creationists/I.D.ers, because I was one of them until recently, and I hardly morphed from an "ignorant moron" into a "paragon of intelligence and reason" overnight.  This is why I don't really believe that all, or even most, supporters of Creation/I.D. are merely ignorant fools.  But that's another post.

Comments

[Phoenix]

This is so nuts. SO nuts. The thing is, science classes have to teach evolutionary theory. How great to have a website that is well done and teaches how to teach the theory correctly. These people who are suing don't even want I.D. taught, they're just suing because they think the classes will be teaching kids that the 'theory' is TRUE. Well, it IS a theory..... Duh. And it is as true as anything we've got. If you look at the teaching model, it incorporates all the possibilities a theory can have for going wrong. Some people are such morons. I bet this couple has sued a bunch of organizations for a variety of things. They probably sit over coffee every morning reading the paper looking for their next target. argh!!!

Oh. I wonder if they offered up a viable alternative? ? ? ? ? ?

[Phoenix]

Obi got nominated for Best New Blog. LA DE DAH. :) I was SO happy to see that. What a compliment to you, Obi! I sure hope you win. HIJOLE !! :)

[Rob]

Oh. I wonder if they offered up a viable alternative? ? ? ? ? ?

You know, just because you know something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean you know the right answer. That's the foundation of science. You trim away the parts of the theory that you can disprove until you close in on the truth. Even then, you are still only one contradictory fact away from having to abandon your theory. The theory of Evolution passed that landmark years ago.. ;-)

[Obi-Wan]

Even then, you are still only one contradictory fact away from having to abandon your theory.

That's true of any theory. Evolution is no different in that respect. That's how good theories survive, and bad ones are rejected.

The theory of Evolution passed that landmark years ago.. ;-)

Can you offer any documented evidence of this, preferably available online? (I'm going to predict ahead of time that whatever you offer in that regard will already have been scientifically proven false years ago, and that documentation of that is available online.)

There are doubtless a handful of militant atheists out there who comprise an exception to this rule, but by and large, no one who believes evolution really cares if it's disproven eventually any more than they care whether Relativity is eventually disproven—except that every scientist would love to be the agent through which said disproof comes!

This is in contrast to both Creationism and I.D., which were both "invented" for the sole purpose of convincing others that one scientific theory is false. No new knowledge has been offered by either "discipline" (for lack of a better word), nor is there likely ever to be any, because they're not looking for any. These people do have a lot at stake, though, in whether evolution should ever be proven false.

And let me throw out another idea. It is a common misconception that calling something "unscientific" is tantamount to calling it "false," or at least "believed only by ignorant 'rednecks' from SC."

This isn't true, particularly as I use the term here. There may be a God, for example, but unless and until he changes his modus operandi significantly, we will never know by scientific methods whether he exists (by the very definition of science). That doesn't mean that everyone who believes in God is wrong, but it does mean that whatever they believe about him is religious in nature, not scientific.

Two different realms.

[Obi-Wan]

Obi got nominated for Best New Blog. LA DE DAH. :)

Phoenix, someone else said the same thing to me by email, but this is something I was unaware was even going on. Can you tell me where this is?

Thanks!

[Rob]

(I'm going to predict ahead of time that whatever you offer in that regard will already have been scientifically proven false years ago, and that documentation of that is available online.)

And I'm gonna further predict ahead of time that said scientific evidence against said evidence will be also scientifically proven false years ago with freely available documentation. Too many parties involved with vested interests in proving the other side false. Evolution is a bad theory. 1+1=2. We all agree to that. But to use 1+2=2 to "prove" that 2+2=5 (for large values of 2), well, that dog won't hunt. I try to avoid the "mainstream" arguments for the reason above, namely science that has an interest in a side. I hate bad science. Evolution is neet, no doubt. I can understand where a fellow a hundred years ago could come up with the thought but why some folks keep a death-grip on the theory beyond all reason does no one a favor.
But I digress.. Have you ever read Chucky's theory? Or any of his commentaries on his theory? One of the main reasons he wrote that theory down was to justify slavery. Aboriginal humans were mearly an Evolutionary link in the chain and no harm came from the harnessing of these "lesser species". I'm not chaining my cart to THAT ox....

[Obi-Wan]

you are still only one contradictory fact away from having to abandon your theory. The theory of Evolution passed that landmark years ago.. ;-)

...And I'm gonna further predict ahead of time that said scientific evidence against said evidence will be also scientifically proven false years ago with freely available documentation. Too many parties involved with vested interests in proving the other side false. Evolution is a bad theory.

Ok. Having just re-read my last comment, I'm afraid I came across as either snarkier or more arrogant than I intended in my "prediction." This whole topic has nothing to do with me or my intelligence one way or another—about all I can do is learn about what others have already figured out.

All I'm interested in is the truth, so let's put your theory (quoted above) to the test. As I asked, please give me an example of a fact that contradicts evolution. Assuming that your statement that "evolution passed that landmark [contradictory facts] years ago" is true, you should be able to find documentation of this somewhere. All I'm asking for is one, although you can give as many as you like or have time to find. If you need a few days to research this or ask someone about it, that's fine. (One thing I've discovered about the internet is that it's easy to give the impression that you're smarter than you really are, if you learn to search and quickly digest information! ;o)

I don't want to sound condescending, either, but I do want you to have complete freedom to frame your argument as you see fit. And to give yourself sort of a "head start," the links included in the post, particularly in the boldfaced section, will give you a good idea of how I will respond if you address those particular topics, so if you can logically and factually debunk my arguments ahead of time, you're a leg up.

I'm not chaining my cart to THAT ox....

Neither is anyone else (except a few white supremacists) any more. "Social Darwinism" was shown to be completely false and unrelated to actual evolution long ago. For it to be true, aboriginal peoples would have to not be homo sapiens, which of course they are easily proven to be both anatomically and genetically.

And in case you have the wrong idea, there's certainly no point in your attacking Darwin's original writings in areas that have indeed since been proven false (e.g. "Social Darwinism"). That should not be the issue in question. The issue is evolution as we presently know it, less the baggage of wrong assumptions made years ago.

I expect that you're familiar with logical fallacies such as argumentum ad consequentiam ("appeal to consequences") and argumentum ad verecundiam ("appeal to authority"), so I ask that you be careful not to step in one of them. I know you'd call me on one in a moment if you spotted it, and you'd expect no less from me.

[Phoenix]

Um. Backing up just a few comments...... "I wonder if they offered a viable alternative?" Did they? Of course they didn't because they don't have one. So what do they expect the school to do? NOT teach evolution in science class? To just ignore it as if it is not there? The school certainly cannot teach creationism. It's not science. So, what is the point of their lawsuit? It would be like one of those fools who does not believe the Holocaust took place and sues a school to take out all Nazi history from history class. What is their alternative? They have none. They are not offering up something different that is the truth. In both cases, those suing are denying truths and cannot offer viable alternatives.

I learned early in life that if I were going to complain about something, be prepared to offer a viable alternative. Otherwise, shut up.

Obi, go to WIZBANG. He has a link to the awards up. You are listed under Best New Blog down towards the end. I was mighty proud to see it. :)

[Rob]

Of course they didn't because they don't have one.

Of course theyd do, you just don't like it. :-) I've not read the original story (doh) but I don't imagine they are trying to remove evolution, I bet they're just trying to have the teachers add the appropriate disclaimers. Evolution is not a natural law and shouln't be taught as one. It's an interesting theory with it's supporting evidence AND refuting evidence. That's just science. Teach it all, dont' filter out the evidence against it just because you don't like what it implies. Teach science. Otherwise aren't you just advancing your own faith?
I'll get back to you, Obi, soon. Work is busy and I had to see the Colts beat up the Steelers last night.. ;-)

[Phoenix]

Why you Stinkpot, you. ha ha ha.... You just love a good debate. :) These people do not offer an alternative. And IF you'd read both articles, you'd see exactly how all your concerns about 'what-if's' and such are dealt with in the teaching of evolution. It is a remarkable curriculum. Now go read it! Besides, what else is there to teach about where we came from? The stork? Under a styrofoam container of KFC coleslaw?

"Teach science. Otherwise aren't you just advancing your own faith?" Hunh? I don't know what you mean by this. No one who teaches science has the option to do anything BUT teach science. Nor does any teacher have the option to cull what they do not like out of the curriculum. Go read the articles. As well, my liking something or not has nothing to do with anything. I know what's right. That's enough.

[Rob]

...own faith?" Hunh? I don't know what you mean by this.

Meaning that a new religion was formed awhile back called Secular Darwinism with Evolution as it's creed. Intelligent Design is mearly the "other side" of that. If one shouldn't be taught, neither should the other, right? Notice the ACLU is strangely silent on this state sponsored religion.
Teach the theory, teach the supporting evidence, teach the refuting evidence. Let the kids think. What a concept! Science's best guess right now is "we really don't know but here's a thought". Present that, and not that "Here is the Law and pay no attention to that evidence behind the curtain"
I agree with you that if you're going to complain about something you MUST immediately offer a suggestion about fixing the problem. However, science doesn't always work that way. I can come up with an experiment that refutes a theory and that is perfectly valid. I don't need to provide an alternate explanation.

[Obi-Wan]

Ok, I've read the story and looked at the site they are objecting to.

The claim is that the site "is an effort 'to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true.'"

They also claim not to be proponents of I.D., "but they object to the teaching of evolution as scientific fact."

The fact that the site was built using federal funds is no doubt part of the lawsuit.

As to the idea that evolution is merely an expression of a competing religious philosophy, "An attorney representing the Berkeley scientists said the courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that teaching evolution in itself is teaching a religious idea." And I agree with the courts in this case. Rob does not.

But rather than get into a debate that probably cannot be settled rationally, I submit that it makes no difference whether there are those who do use evolution as a foundation for a philosophical or religious belief. There are, no doubt, those who do indeed do so.

But that has no bearing on whether evolution can stand on its own as a scientific theory, and I think Rob and I can agree on that. The whole issue revolves around that question, not what some people may do with it. Hence, my earlier request to Rob to substantiate his position.

By the way, the only things I saw on the site that anyone could object to are the places where the site takes on objectors to the theory of evolution, such as I.D. The site itself takes no prisoners, as it were.

[Rob]

And I agree with the courts in this case. Rob does not.

I don't agree that it should be taught as the sole theory and certainly not with the weight they give it in schools as being a natural law.
And believe it or not, as a theory I agree with you that evolution is valid. From the observable evidence it is a reasonable conclusion to draw. That's science. I happen to think it's silly but that has nothing to do with hypotheses or theories. It does, though, have flaws and outright contradictions. Phlogiston was a valid theory which explained observed evidence. Eventually contradictory evidence was found and the theory abandoned. Evolution has been "phlogisticaed" for years now ;-) (and I'll get to that eventually)
Point being (my point, granted) is that it should be presented, warts and all. Not whitewashed and certainly not presented as the absolute final word on the matter. That is bad science.

[Obi-Wan]

The issue before the court was whether evolution itself was an expression of a religious/philosophical idea. I took this statement:

Meaning that a new religion was formed awhile back called Secular Darwinism with Evolution as it's creed.

...to mean that you think that it is. But anyway...

I think you may have contradicted yourself in your last comment. If...

evolution is valid. From the observable evidence it is a reasonable conclusion to draw. That's science.

...then it cannot have "outright contradictions" in it. If it has such contradictions, it is no longer a valid theory. But maybe you were just rushed and the words came out wrong. I do that a lot.

Anyway, all of this only goes back to my request of Rob to provide documentation of one of these contradictions, or something similar. Actually, I was a little surprised to hear you say the above. But your statement:

Teach the theory, teach the supporting evidence, teach the refuting evidence. Let the kids think. What a concept!

...taken by itself, is certainly valid. The issue before us, on which we disagree, is whether there is in fact factual refuting evidence against the theory of organic evolution.

Do I at least have that issue framed correctly?

[rob]

I think you may have contradicted yourself in your last comment.

Nope, I'm just no wordsmith. Probably needed a few more dozen words to make my point. My point was that like Phlogiston, Evolution is a valid theory given the facts. Also like Phlogiston, Evolution has alot of evidence against it and is nearing the end of its life as a theory. That's how theories go. Like the famous Stephen Hawking quote we both like to reference, a theory is never proven, only valid until evidence to contradict it is found.
(to avoid starting a Google-fest, let me start "off the hip")
At the risk of incurring your wrath, I've never bought for a moment the tennent of evolution, namely that life could swim against the tide of entropy. Left to its own, how could a group of amino acids chain together to form an organic molecule? In a closed system it would be impossible. So evolution fans generally cite that it's not a closed system, the sun, stupid! But that brings alot of it's own problems. First of all, the sun is a harsh mistr.. err, I mean the sun is well, hot. Lots of radiation. simple life could not exist with the sun beaming down like that. Oh, the proponents say, but there was Ozone! No radiation. Not so fast.. If there's enough oxygen around for the ozone layer to form then theres enough to snuff out the early life goo. Oxygen is surprisingly toxic to life. So either there is alot of oxygen and organic molecules can't form, or there isn't enough oxygen and organic molecules can't form. Entropy wins. Entropy always wins.

[Steve]

Yep, in the grand scheme of things, entropy trumps all. If everything started in a great ball of hot gas, about all it could become on its own is thinner cold gas. Here's an argument I came up with as a Junior High Schooler in a class on apologetics. (Paraphrased, of course.) * Look to origins. Where did everything come from? Everything comes from something, which comes from something else until eventually something just always was. If that original something was just a bunch of exploding matter, what are the odds of it arriving at something as complex and interrelated as the observable universe or even a human eye or a leaf? If, however, that original something was God, the odds of a complex interrelated system being possible become 100%. So which original condition is the more likely, given that we do indeed have an immensely complex and interrelated system in existence? I've heard it said, and I agree, that it takes far more faith to believe in the Big Bang than to believe in a Creator. Much of the argument for an Old Earth (necessary to evolutionary theory but irrelevant to creation/intelligent design) is based on things like carbon dating and theories about the rate of fossilization, the rate of petrochemical production, and the like. Fossilization is well under way right now at Mount St. Helens. I've heard that live mollusks have been carbon dated as being thousands of years old. Bacteria are being discovered deep in the Earth's crust that are capable of chemical conversions we once thought would take vastly longer to occur. Carbon dating seems particularly suspect to me, as it is based on the idea that carbon is incorporated into an organism's tissue at one ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14, maintained at that ration during the organism's life, and then decays at a set rate thereafter, thus making the ratio at any given later date an indicator of how long ago the organism died. But why should this be so? If I eat an apple or a piece of toast, that food contains carbon, as does my body, and that carbon is decaying as I type at the same rate as it will in my corpse one day. I do believe that many who teach evolution truly believe it to be good science and correct, but I'm convinced that there are also many who are in denial about what the implications of creationism/intelligent design would be and therefore can't or won't look at the competing arguments and evidence with an unbiased eye.

[Rob]

Obi... since you brought up the talkorigins site, may I suggest the rebuttle site? trueorigin? Give that a gander if you don't mind. I've never seen that site before.. I saw it linked off of talkorigins. Lots of quotes from noted evolutionists regarding the total lack of fossil evidence supporting evolution. Also touches the entropy thing better than I've ever seen.

[Obi-Wan]

At the risk of incurring your wrath, I've never bought for a moment the tennent of evolution, namely that life could swim against the tide of entropy.

That's hardly enough to incur my wrath, silly Rob. ;o) But it does deserve an answer.

You've essentially used the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" argument. Rather than go into all the reasons why this explanation is scientifically invalid, I'll just point out the contradictions such a theory presents. If the 2nd Law prevents life from forming, it also prevents and organism from growing—and especially reproducing.

A child weighs 40 pounds. Ten years later, she weighs 100 pounds. Looks like an increase in ordered mass to me. (Entropy, of course, is simple an increase in disorder.)

And what about a few years later when she has a baby? You started out with two life forms, and end up with three! Hardly an increase in disordered mass.

But what really amazes me is that you just made an argument, then proved yourself wrong, then continued as if nothing happened. You proved that the entropy argument (2nd Law) did not apply to Earth, since with the sun present, the earth is not a closed system. You then proceeded to raise several objections that had nothing to do with entropy. (Shrug)

That's how theories go. Like the famous Stephen Hawking quote we both like to reference, a theory is never proven, only valid until evidence to contradict it is found.

This is true.

Entropy wins. Entropy always wins.

In the end, sure. But not today. ;o)

In a closed system it would be impossible. So evolution fans generally cite that it's not a closed system, the sun, stupid! But that brings alot of it's own problems. First of all, the sun is a harsh mistr.. err, I mean the sun is well, hot. Lots of radiation. simple life could not exist with the sun beaming down like that. Oh, the proponents say, but there was Ozone! No radiation. Not so fast.. If there's enough oxygen around for the ozone layer to form then theres enough to snuff out the early life goo. Oxygen is surprisingly toxic to life. So either there is alot of oxygen and organic molecules can't form, or there isn't enough oxygen and organic molecules can't form. Entropy wins.

You've ignored a lot of science in the above statements.

Early life formed in the oceans, not on land. Ionizing radiation would not have been a problem there, although there are life forms around today that can handle massive amounts of ionizing radiation without a problem. When photosynthetic bacteria began to form, that's when oxygen began to accumulate in the atmosphere, and life began to take advantage of that.

Steve, welcome to Forward Biased! I don't know how long you've been reading, but I hope you'll stick around and comment often.

This comment is already much too long, so let me just address your "what are the odds?" argument for now.

The odds don't matter.

Look, if you were here, I could cause something to happen right in front of you against which the odds are greater than one to the number of atoms in the entire observable universe. And I can do it with 10 decks of cards. All I have to do is deal them out.

There. The odds of that particular combination of cards occurring is staggering! But...but there it is, right in front of you!

The thing is that no one really knows what the odds are of all the circumstances neccessary for life to form coming together in the right way, and indeed, life may be quite rare in the universe. But given enough time, anything that's possible can eventually happen. Especially after 14 billion years.

[Obi-Wan]

Obi... since you brought up the talkorigins site, may I suggest the rebuttle site? trueorigin? Give that a gander if you don't mind.

Sure, Rob. I've taken a quick look at it, and I didn't have to read very far into the page you linked to to find a problem.

Evolutionists have no basis for extrapolating the concept of genetic variation into Isaak’s claim that a particular “rate” of genetic variation “is all that is required to produce [(macro-)evolution] from a common ancestor.” Isaak apparently wants us to join him in simplistically believing that because a population’s gene pool will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not science, and the facts of genetic science simply don’t corroborate Isaak’s story.

This whole "micro-macro" evolution thing is a strawman. Sure, small changes in gene frequencies occur over time within a species.

So what's your proposed mechanism for stopping those changes before they cross the "special" barrier?

The idea of what a "species" is is entirely an artificial construct. There's nothing in nature that constrains us to specify that, while a donkey is a different species from a horse, a Great Dane is the same species as a toy Chihuahua. We made the divisions according to what seemed best at the time, and occasionally we change those divisions when it becomes obvious that we made a mistake.

But saying that we need a "leap of faith" to believe that gene variations can create new "species" is exactly backwards. The leap of faith is required to believe that these changes will somehow stop before a new "species" is formed! How do you propose to stop them?

[Rob]

I'll just point out the contradictions such a theory presents.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but you've setup a wonderfully simplistic straw man to beat to death. :-) There is an impassable difference between a baby growing into an adult and a chain of acids becoming, well, even a single celled organism. You are equating apples to ball-bearings.
Read the TrueOrigins section on Entropy and comment. I think in this case you are referencing a popular argument has no basis. In fact, most of the leading evolutionist agree to that.

What stops a species from changing to another species? How do you stop them? Easy. The genepool. Mutations occur. Breeding these mutations back into the pool almost always removes them. The 99.99...% that don't have the mutation overwhelm the one difference and breed it out of existence. Or don't allow the mutation to breed. Plus genes are very self-repairing so the mutation loses out in the end. We've bred dogs from their original ancestors to be everything from Grand Pyrenees to toy Chihuahuas. Maintaining these breeds requires a great deal of effort and oversight (Intelligent Design of the Kennel clubs, if you will :-) If we quit breeding dogs and let them roam a large island in less then a hundred years they would all go back and resemble their ancestors. The gene pool would repair itself. No amount of time would ever produce a bird-dog, though. So birds can change their beak shape over time to adapt to the food supply, but you can't go from a reptile to a bird. Look at the lungs. No incremental mutation over time could change a reptile lung into a bird lung. There is no half way point between the two. Any gradual process would hit a brick wall and kill the critter.

[Obi-Wan]

Forgive me for pointing this out, but you've setup a wonderfully simplistic straw man to beat to death. :-)

I don't think so. But I think you have. Permit me to explain.

There is an impassable difference between a baby growing into an adult and a chain of acids becoming, well, even a single celled organism. You are equating apples to ball-bearings.

There is a great difference, but it's completely irrelevant do the question at hand, which is The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or entropy.

The fact remains that if entropy prevents the formation of life in the first place, it also prevents growth and reproduction, both of which require an increase in ordered mass and a decrease in disorder, or entropy. You're changing the subject in the middle of the argument. Stick to entropy until you can admit that it's no longer the issue—then we can move on. The longer you cling to this entropy argument (as I said earlier, in the post) the longer we'll just spin our wheels.

What stops a species from changing to another species? How do you stop them? Easy. The genepool. Mutations occur. Breeding these mutations back into the pool almost always removes them.

"Almost always" doesn't equal always.

Dear Lord, Rob, you can't just use your imagination with this sort of thing. You've got to use facts. You know as well as I do that mutations occur in the wild, and are sometimes beneficial. We're just waiting for the H2N5 virus to mutate into a strain that passes from human to human, as many strains of viruses have done before.

Here's one list of beneficial genetic mutations in humans, and it doesn't even include the sickle-cell mutation that protects many Africans from Malaria. Here's another. While these individuals will eventually die of their mutation, they will live long enough to have offspring, which is more than the Malaria-infected population can do.

Here's another excellent response to the untrue claim that mutations cannot have driven natural selection. The maladaptive mutations are irrelevant—they're selected out, and the few beneficial ones go on.

If we quit breeding dogs and let them roam a large island in less then a hundred years they would all go back and resemble their ancestors.

Just what documentation can you provide that proves this always happens?

I've provided several links to support my argument.

[Rob]

The fact remains that if entropy prevents the formation of life in the first place, it also prevents growth and reproduction, both of which require an increase in ordered mass and a decrease in disorder, or entropy.

No, the fact doesn't remain. I call a foul here. :-) That's like saying adding a room onto your house is the same process as building the first house ever. You can't compare the two processes. Growth and reproduction are biological processes fueled by eating and breathing. It's a mini open system operting within a closed system. Creating the life in the first place is governed by the closed system it started in. Creation of life from nothing is, well, spontanious generation which ranks up there with Phlogistin and Aether.

“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.” [C. J. Smith (evolutionist), Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

“We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization. We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.” [G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck (evolutionists), Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

“Life, the temporary reversal of a universal trend toward maximum disorder, was brought about by the production of information mechanisms. In order for such mechanisms to first arise it was necessary to have matter capable of forming itself into a self-reproducing structure that could extract energy from the environment for its first self-assembly. Directions for the reproduction of plans, for the extraction of energy and chemicals from the environment, for the growth of sequence and the mechanism for translating instructions into growth all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way it could have come about.” [S.W. Angrist and L.G. Hepler (evolutionists), Order and Chaos, Basic Books, New York, 1967, pp. 203-204]
“Closely related to the apparent ‘paradox’ of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent ‘paradox’ of spontaneous self-organization in nature. It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.” [J.W. Patterson (evolutionist), Scientists Confront Creationism, L.R. Godfrey, Ed., W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p. 110]

[Obi-Wan]

Oh, Rob.

In one sense, you're doing a great job of debating. In another sense, the one I'm interested in (looking for the truth), you're mainly doing a great job of obfuscating the issue.

Every time I try to bring us back into focus, you change the subject.

For the record, we're NOT talking about abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which deals ONLY with what happened to life AFTER it came into being.

For the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede, for now, the point that God may have created the first life. There. Please don't keep bringing it up—it's a red herring. The reddest.

No, the fact doesn't remain. I call a foul here. :-) That's like saying adding a room onto your house is the same process as building the first house ever. You can't compare the two processes. Growth and reproduction are biological processes fueled by eating and breathing. It's a mini open system operting within a closed system. Creating the life in the first place is governed by the closed system it started in. Creation of life from nothing is, well, spontanious generation which ranks up there with Phlogistin and Aether.

For most of that paragraph I have no idea what you're talking about. What the heck is the "closed system" that the "mini open system" is operating in? What's what here?

I realize that it's easy to fall into the "simplistic" trap, but one hallmark of a good theory, and a good explanation, is that it can be explained with a minimum of technobabble. That's pretty much all I got from that paragraph, except that you also tried to confuse the issue by dragging abiogenesis into it too.

ENTROPY, Rob. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's not complicated. Overall, whenever work is done, there will be more disorder created than order. This can be temporarily reversed in an open system such as Earth is. Order comes from disorder all around us.

A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.”

Like crystals, right? We all know how it's impossible for a crystal to just spontaneously form—it must be directed by information coming from an intelligence.

The world isn't random. Chemical processes follow laws that follow from chemical behavior, and none of it is random. Yes, order can spontaneously form.

I'm also waiting for you to start linking to documentation of facts instead of just other people's interpretations of those facts.

[Rob]

For the record, we're NOT talking about abiogenesis.

For the record, you brought it up and I'm famous for being easily sidetracked. However, my argument was to counter your assertion that entropy would deny both abiogenesis and reproduction and growth. That is simply false and I think I quoted enough PhD's to make my point, didn't I?

Equating crystal formation with life creation is another strawman. This time you're equating apples to bowling balls. Here's another exerpt from TrueOrigins that explains it better than I can.

On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.

Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.

So you see that even with crystal forming, entropy wins again.

But as you say, lets leave this for now and get back to species becoming other species. Lets start with the acknowledged fact by evolutionists that transitional species or fossils do not exist. Darwin himself was troubled by this and stated that if none were ever found then his theory should be disgarded.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

[Obi-Wan]

Stand by, all. Got a lot of stuff to do. Will be back later tonight...