Jump to content
Islamic Forum
hotguy31

Proving Evolution Wrong.

Recommended Posts

The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a law, not a theory, unlike the theory of evolution) states that: Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly. Evolution teaches that everything got better over millions of years and things still are getting better. So my question to evolutionists is: How does a theory overrule a scientific law that has been proven, unlike the thoery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a law, not a theory, unlike the theory of evolution) states that: Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly. Evolution teaches that everything got better over millions of years and things still are getting better. So my question to evolutionists is: How does a theory overrule a scientific law that has been proven, unlike the thoery.

 

 

That will upset evolutionists who claim we came from Monkeys, or if you go back far enough a 'ROCK'!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do things get better in evolution? Evolving is a response to the environment, not some ultimate goal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

It upsets 'evolutionists' about as much as claiming the invention of the typewriter disproves evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution, the whole problem arises from comparing the physical laws regarding entropy and then using the word 'better' in a humanistic sense rather than how the Laws of Thermodynamics state, a state they define as being 'more stable'. A creature which has evolved from it's predecessor is no more 'stable' than what it evolved from, it is suited more to its environment which is an entirely different concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol eion just stole my sentence

not all just a vise versa of that alittle haha.

itsounds likeu have that source of urz blownup then u thought thats the truth , nice truth loool , i just knew theyr are freaks in this world , you maybe have the same statement but u maybe not know ur 1 of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Islam was all about science.

 

Honestly, I see some amazing things people point out about Islam and science, but when it comes to evolution...

 

What don't disbelievers understand?

 

There was a MOD on here that believed in evolution and he got kicked off the team and banned from the board.

 

By the way, thats a rhetorical question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how do things get better in evolution? Evolving is a response to the environment, not some ultimate goal

 

It's not a response only. It is a POSITIVE response.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Layna,

 

It's not a response only. It is a POSITIVE response.

 

That's a bit of a subjective is it not? It's a positive response only if you consider the adaptation of an organism to its environment and therefore the ability of that organism to reproduce to be positive. You might allude to evolution being 'good' for humans because it means we can reproduce in relative security compared to other organisms. However if we talk of evolution within strains of avian bird flu we'd view evolution as negative. You could argue I suppose that evolution is positive for the avian bird flu from the perspective of the avian bird flu should it evolve to suit its environment, however in science there is not such a subjective term as 'better' or 'worse' in science because the terms really are only human constructs.

 

On the topic of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics the whole debate is over stability, and a human being is no more biochemically stable an organism than a fruit fly. The term 'better' as the original topic poster suggested is not a term used in science to describe anything purely because it is subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That will upset evolutionists who claim we came from Monkeys, or if you go back far enough a 'ROCK'!!

Evolutionists do not claim such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a law, not a theory, unlike the theory of evolution) states that: Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly. Evolution teaches that everything got better over millions of years and things still are getting better. So my question to evolutionists is: How does a theory overrule a scientific law that has been proven, unlike the thoery.

 

 

First off the second Law of Thermodynamics that matter and energy head toward a more disorganized state as opposed to an organized stated.

 

Ex:Burning coal, gives off heat and smoke.

 

The second Law of Thermodynamics states NOTHING about better or worse as such things are subjective. Is steam better than water?

 

This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with evolution. Like someone has already stated better is a subjective term. Evolution states organisms adapt in order to exist and reproduce in their environment.

 

I'm suprised that you would try to compare the two that have nothing to with each other.

 

Oh and just so you know thanks to Quatum physics The second Law of thermodynamics was shown to not apply to all things anymore making it no longer a law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe anything in quantum physics has overruled the second law of thermodynamics, but that's beside the point.

 

In the long run, the second law of thermodynamics predicts that entropy will increase as the universe spreads itself thinner and thinner. Long after life on earth has ended, entropy will still be increasing in the universe as a whole.

 

The reason that the evolution of life on earth does not violate the second law of thermodynamics is because energy is still being added to the system. Thus, the "if left alone" part of the original poster's supposition does not apply. The earth has not been "left alone" during the billions of years that life has been evolving. It has been basking in sunlight. When the sun burns out billions of years from now, the energy the earth receives (which is ultimately what made life, and thus evolution of that life, possible) will cease. At that time, the effects of the second law of thermodynamics will be more apparent.

 

Evolution is completely compatible with the second law of thermodynamics. In the long run, the earth will be a cold, lifeless cinder. For now, though, we still have our day in the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a response only. It is a POSITIVE response.

 

Salam.

Not really. It's a random response, which only becomes positive or negative in retrospect. If the response enables the organism to be more successful in its environment, and pass along the improvement to its children, we label it "POSITIVE." 99 percent of all the species which ever lived are now extinct, so in the long run most of these experiments fail. The dinosaurs were the winners of the genetic lottery for millions of years. Human beings have been on the earth for a much shorter time. One day we too may take our place in the pantheon of failed experiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a law, not a theory, unlike the theory of evolution) states that: Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly. Evolution teaches that everything got better over millions of years and things still are getting better. So my question to evolutionists is: How does a theory overrule a scientific law that has been proven, unlike the thoery.

this is a misuse of the second law of thermodynamics, which asserts that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, and says nothing about the trend towards complexity that a system attempting to reach equilibrium may undergo.

 

Here is a question for you. If scientists as a whole believe in evolution and have studied the laws of thermodynamics, then why is it only laymen use it as proof against evolution?

 

the answer is that it is not proof against evolution, it only looks so for those who improperly understand the concepts.

Edited by seacow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly

 

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing.

 

It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order, because:

 

1- the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

 

2- entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size.

 

3- even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

 

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

 

 

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution.

 

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy. Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law, so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently.

 

Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

 

Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

 

In fact, you can see order come and go in nature, yourself; a few examples are snowflakes and other frost crystals, cloud formations, dust devils, ripples in sand dunes, photosynthesis, the freezing of water, and eddies and whirlpools in streams.

 

 

How does a theory overrule a scientific law that has been proven

 

To be pedantic, your understanding of a Physical Law is mistaken. Here's a general definition for a Physical Law:

 

"Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and simple observations, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community"

 

As you can see, no "proof" is required (as, proof is impossible in the context of science).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Muslim and I believe that evolution is true. But there are two things to point out:

 

1) Is evolution correct?

2) Is evolution compatible with Islam?

 

The two are independent of each other. I answer "yes" to both.

 

For those brothers and sisters who don't believe that Islam and evolution are compatible, please quote the Quran or a Hadith to prove your point. I will try to have you understand why I think there is no conflict between Islam and evolution.

 

Islam specifically points out certain things to us. For example Islam explicitly states that humans came from Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were real people. I interpret this to mean that the material which Allah SWT used to create Adam and Eve did not come from the womb of a primate, but it was shaped directly by Allah SWT, although the opposite can be argued as well. Either way, I take what Islam says as absolute truth, then what science tells me as secondary truth. Islam says nothing specific about the creation of species and such, so I will believe science because it makes sense. This is why there is no conflict between Islam and evolution, in my opinion.

 

W'Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu Alaykom

 

Law of Thermodynamics (which is a law, not a theory, unlike the theory of evolution)

 

And as we all propably know, theory of evolution is not a law because there is no way scientist could explain instinct. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists can and do explain instinct by way of evolution of the brain. However, that is not why the theory of evolution is not a law like the law of thermodynamics. The theory of evolution operates on a completely different level (biological and millions of years) than the laws of thermodynamics (physical and all time scales).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientists can and do explain instinct by way of evolution of the brain. However, that is not why the theory of evolution is not a law like the law of thermodynamics. The theory of evolution operates on a completely different level (biological and millions of years) than the laws of thermodynamics (physical and all time scales).

 

Scientists don't know assume. They assume instinticts are remnant of the our animalistic past. Where is the proof. Simply by looking for similarities? Not enough. Since your main idea is transformation of genome and phenotype of an organism you have to prove us it happens by observation or experiement then it becomes empirical evidence. Otherwise remains hypothesis and simple logic.

 

Well, that is not enough. All living organisms have to eat and reproduce. Instincts keep those goals active thus they play vital role in the life of any living organisms. They don't have to come from somewhere else. If I design a robot that would need to live long and reproduce I have to put in his brain a software directing him to look for energy source and then at a certain time to initiate his replication process. And if faced with threat I will make sure he has fight or flight reflex, as well. For all of those basic fundamental functions you need to install those instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a law, not a theory, unlike the theory of evolution) states that: Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly. Evolution teaches that everything got better over millions of years and things still are getting better. So my question to evolutionists is: How does a theory overrule a scientific law that has been proven, unlike the thoery.

 

I refer you to the double slit experiment. In the experiment they took a lead plate with one slit in it and fired electrons at it. as would be expected it formed a linear pattern on the opposite wall. when they used a plate with two slits in it they received very different results. Electrons are the smallest units of matter, you would expect electrons fired at two slits to form two linear patterns on the opposite wall, it didn't. Instead a wave function was shown, i.e. multiple lines formed due to cross interference. This didnt make sense because according to conventional logic only waves can have this effect, not matter(electrons). When they attempted to set up a device to observe what was occurring when electrons were fired at two slits they went back to behaving like matter and created only two lines.

 

We as the observer, by virtue of our presence, are literally collapsing this wave of near infinite possibilities into what we consider tangible reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I refer you to the double slit experiment. In the experiment they took a lead plate with one slit in it and fired electrons at it. as would be expected it formed a linear pattern on the opposite wall. when they used a plate with two slits in it they received very different results. Electrons are the smallest units of matter, you would expect electrons fired at two slits to form two linear patterns on the opposite wall, it didn't. Instead a wave function was shown, i.e. multiple lines formed due to cross interference. This didnt make sense because according to conventional logic only waves can have this effect, not matter(electrons). When they attempted to set up a device to observe what was occurring when electrons were fired at two slits they went back to behaving like matter and created only two lines.

 

We as the observer, by virtue of our presence, are literally collapsing this wave of near infinite possibilities into what we consider tangible reality.

 

I don't know why you refered to quantum mechanics but thanks anyway. Quantum physics is even in more agreement with religion than any other scientific theory. Terms like quantum choice emphasize the importance of the observing subject on the reality. Subject's observations and actions contribute to his/her version of reality... That is what Islam teaches us, too. Those who are not trying to search/obseve for the truth (the meaning of life) won't come to the same conclusions with those who look for one. Everybody will assume they are right, because it will appear to them as that. Different realities are valid for everybody. However, subjective realities might become parallel and close for people sharing similar values or totally conflicting with those who choose different ways of life.

 

Thus, those who would choose to live under the guidance of Islam would walk in parallel realities, all aligned to the ultimate direction - Almighty Allah SWT. Those who refuse would deviate into the opposite direction. Thus their paths take them to totally different destinations. The deatinations are real but paths leading to them can be several.

 

The choices we make during our life experience determine our destiny in this life and in hereafter.

Entagled electrons prove us that we are not totally independant. At many occasions in our life we do feel that we simply can't control everything in our lives. Sometimes Almighty God's challenges are presented to us instantly out of nowhere who knows may be via a control over our entagled electrons. Then we simply we get to realize and accept our limitations and humble position in determining our destiny. We realize we don't have any control on certain things. However, at the same time we shouldn't forget that our actions would affect the destiny of our entangled being, too. It is two way interaction...

 

Thus quantum mechanics brings better understanding regarding our predetermined destiny and our role in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucid has accurately refuted the original topic.

 

 

 

Quantum physics is even in more agreement with religion than any other scientific theory

 

I'm afraid that's not true. Quantum physics assumes that all quantum systems obey a set of probabilistic laws (such as the Schrodinger, or Klein-Gordon, equation). And as with all physics, is founded on the fundamentals of conservation laws (invariance, and symmetry). In fact, by definition, science strives on explaining phenomena via natural mechanisms (note the emphasis on natural).

 

An intervening God, producing (say) a miracle, would violate these fundamental laws (and the mere assumptions) of science.

 

And seeing as all major religions (including Islam) assume the existence of miracles, then this contradicts the foundations of science. Quite simply.

 

(As Hawking once said (to paraphrase): Even if there is a God, he cannot intervene in the universe.)

 

 

As for your understanding of quantum observations: It is somewhat mistaken. I'd recommend reading up on the Mind-Body Problem; the thought experiment, Wigner's friend, might be a good starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An intervening God, producing (say) a miracle, would violate these fundamental laws (and the mere assumptions) of science.

 

And seeing as all major religions (including Islam) assume the existence of miracles, then this contradicts the foundations of science. Quite simply.

 

(As Hawking once said (to paraphrase): Even if there is a God, he cannot intervene in the universe.)

 

Two problems:

1 - You assume all miracles must be violations of laws.

2 - God is not bound by quantum mechanics or any other laws, and is free to intervene in whatever way He likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That will upset evolutionists who claim we came from Monkeys, or if you go back far enough a 'ROCK'!!

 

 

Or not - if Earth was a closed system, then yeah, it would work.

 

But it's not.

 

You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

You see that big burning ball of hydrogen and helium in the sky? Well, the energy that it gives off is diffused onto our little rock.

 

Imagine there's two gas tanks, one is more pressurised than the other. Link them together and according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the energy in the one that has a higher pressure (And more energy) will transfer pressure (or energy) to the other one until they both reach a state of equilibrium (Both have equal pressure/energy.).

 

Ok, now think of the Sun, with all it's energy, as the more pressurised gas tank, it transfers some of its energy (As it dissipates.) to Earth (The less pressruised tank.).

 

This is where life gets its energy from, and why life gets more complex as time goes on - because it has a massive supply of energy coming from the Sun to fuel it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×