Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham Debate Catch-All

Can you explain it to me and why supposedly it counters evolution? Is it saying that there is a maximum amount of chaos/disorder and it settles over time into order/balance?

fangblackbone wrote:

Can you explain it to me and why supposedly it counters evolution? Is it saying that there is a maximum amount of chaos/disorder and it settles over time into order/balance?

It only counters evolution if you think that the Earth is a closed system - which a lot of the people who employ it seem to believe.

fangblackbone wrote:

Also, I am not sure even after looking up the second law of thermodynamics that I understand it. Aren't these laws subject to the test conditions/environment that are the earth or our solar system?

Does this mean that if another law of thermodynamics does support evolution that they will change their mind or at least their retort?

Nah, they're just parroting the party line that "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" without understanding what the 2nd law is or how evolution supposedly violates it. They just know it violates it because someone they believe told them it is so. "Look, we're using YOUR science to disprove YOUR science! Hahaha! GOTCHA!" The Earth can never be considered a closed system as long as that brilliant yellow ball of hydrogen keeps sh*tting energy at it.

Also, when you are looking at the 2nd Law, you need to ensure that you are not cherry-picking a start and end point so that it fits your desired output. Ideally you take a long enough period of measurement that transient decreases in entropy are shown to be that...transient. In addition to that, as was mentioned above, you can't simply look at humans, all by themselves, as a closed system. You have to look at what goes into us and what comes out of us.

The basic idea of the 2nd law is that if you create a closed system, then the energy levels of everything in it will slowly decrease over time, and the matter will fall apart, leading to an even distribution of energy and mass throughout the system. So entropy is the loss of "order"; an ordered system is one that is organized. Entropy induces disorder (and randomness). You can get this yourself - put a candle in a box, and it will burn down, the heat will dissipate within the air, and soon you have no light, no candle, no useful heat, etc.

Now, suppose that you allow someone to *add* resources to the box. Every time the candle succumbs to entropy, they put in a new one. That system goes from highly ordered, to less ordered (melted candle) to highly ordered again, BUT, it takes an outside influence to happen, in this case, a candle tender.

So Creationists argue that evolution means that as populations progress from "lesser" creatures to "higher" creatures, they are necessarily becoming more ordered - and that, they claim, is impossible by the 2nd law without the intervention of God (as the "life tender"). This is massively wrong; life takes in energy and mass from, for example, the sun and the earth, and so it can re-order itself and push back on entropy. (Of course, once dead, it can no longer do this, and it succumbs to entropy.) Earth is not a closed system in the frame of reference in which life exists (and in which evolution occurs).

If the Creationist objection were true, then life would have simply ended when it needed it's first meal.

Demosthenes wrote:
Podunk wrote:

I love that book.

Ok, clearly I need to read this, what book?

Cryptonomicon, I believe.

Edit: Curses! Paleohausered!

So is it a sort of a generalization that the creator is the only one that can create order from chaos and/or counter a system that science says is naturally disordering? That even science's own argument proves there is a creator...

Pat Robertson of course doesn't get everything right, but even he pretty much disavows Ken Ham.

Malor wrote:

It's a hard fact that creatures change over long spans of time, into entirely new creatures

The first part is proven and observable. The bolded part not so much... Look at creatures that have been heavily pushed to evolve in the course of human history (observed). It is mostly domesticated animals. The easy one is a dog versus a wolf. I was taught that to be classified as a different species animals must not be able to interbreed and produce a viable offspring. Dogs and wolves can produce viable offspring. Therefore the a dog is still a wolf and not something else.

Robear:
You say that evolution is not random and bring up some good points, but you also mention that mutations are random. These mutations must occur in order for change (evolution) to happen. The fatty cells must have had a very lucky mutation randomly occur before there could be change. This is the sticky point, not the issue of their survival being random., but the fact that the mutation is.

DudleySmith:
The counter Ham proposes to the DNA all being similar is that another interpretation of creatures being genetically similar was because the creator that made them started with a base design that would be widely compatible. He goes for the "you interpret it this way, but I interpret it my way" approach.

If evolution were random, that would not be true.

This is just wrong. You are misunderstanding how probability works. Mutations are accidents, not deliberate, at least as far as we presently know. In the face of selective pressure, some mutations will grant increased fitness. But we do not know what the mutations will be. It is a random process.

fangblackbone wrote:

So is it a sort of a generalization that the creator is the only one that can create order from chaos and/or counter a system that science says is naturally disordering? That even science's own argument proves there is a creator...

I am not sure what you are asking here. (Note, not trying to be snarky.)

I *think* that you are asking how can a system that is in a state of disorder get some order in it. In that case, remember that the more complex the system, the longer the length of time it takes to go from order to disorder. For example, ice (low level of entropy) to water (higher level of entropy) is fairly quick. Rock to sand takes a lot longer to go from low entropy to high entropy. When you are looking at something the size of the universe, you have a hell of a lot of complexity, and the length of time to get to complete entropy is of a scale that I am not sure human minds can comprehend.

Also, the line from start to finish is not a straight line, with no dips or peaks. Rather, it is a jagged line that trends from low entropy to high entropy. For a *very* simplified explanation, imagine taking a deck of cards and throwing it up in the air. As you go from just before throwing it up (low entropy) to all of the cards on the ground (high entropy) there will be times when the cards will look completely random. Then there will be times when, because of air currents and how they fall, there will be cards that will be stacked up above one another in a very ordered arrangement.

Dogs and wolves can produce viable offspring. Therefore the a dog is still a wolf and not something else.

But horses and donkeys cannot produce viable offspring: mules and jennies are sterile. That's because horses and donkeys have diverged enough that they can no longer successfully interbreed.

Remember that the classification of most species was done well before we had sequenced very many genomes, and a huge number still have not been done. You will get funny results sometimes, where things are classed as separate species when they shouldn't be, because they looked like they were different.

As I've said before, if we had never seen dogs, and if we had no access to genetic testing, we would probably class St. Bernards and chihuahuas as separate species, at least for a time. They don't look like they should be able to interbreed. We'd eventually figure it out, but to all surface appearances, it shouldn't work.

Ultimately, it's the genes that are dominant, and as our understanding of genetics increases, you're going to see some shuffling around of which animals go where in the overall tree of life. But that doesn't mean the model was wrong to begin with, just that our classification instruments were crude.

Tanglebones wrote:

Phil Plait on whether Bill Nye should have engaged in the debate, and whose voices should be heard:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...

So I urge anyone reading this who is a believer of any stripe to speak up. In almost every case, evolution is not a threat to your beliefs.

I can't say I agree with this. I understand that we want the message of evolution to be delivered in a gentle, non-antagonistic way that won't offend religious people so that they're more likely to listen, but I've been seeing a lot of statements like this in the wake of the Bill Nye debate, and it annoys me because I don't think it's true. I don't think that science and Abrahamic religions are compatible, so I don't think they can co-exist in harmony in the long run.

First, I think that science will, ultimately, be able to answer all questions that the religious could possibly think of with regards to how physical existence came about. I think this would ultimately kill off the Abrahamic religions, which certainly makes science a threat to them.

Secondly, I think that evolution makes it pretty difficult to believe in a substantial portion of the early part of the Bible, which in turn calls the whole book into question (because if one part is wrong or metaphorical, who's to say what other parts of the Bible have a similar problem?). I know there are moderate Christians out there who have formed a theology that attempts to incorporate both their scientific and religious beliefs (where the 'seven days' at the beginning of the Bible equate to enormous amounts of time instead of literal 24-hour days), but I still think this makes it difficult read those early stories literally. And for many conservative Christians, a Bible that can't be interpreted literally causes the religion to lose all meaning to them. For people like that, there's no point if Jesus' death and resurrection are just some sort of fable.

I would prefer to pass on a message that one SHOULD choose between religion and scientific belief, and that it makes a lot more sense to choose the side that's based on rationalism and evidence then to choose the side that's based off a book that claims magic used to happen.

fangblackbone wrote:

So is it a sort of a generalization that the creator is the only one that can create order from chaos and/or counter a system that science says is naturally disordering? That even science's own argument proves there is a creator...

Yeah, under the assumption that higher forms of life are an increase of order as opposed to an increase of entropy. (Ignoring the fact that it has nothing to do with the scientific definition of entropy). And under the assumption that there is nothing that can be providing energy to reverse entropy on Earth. (Ignoring the flaming ball of gas in sky.)

Quintin_Stone wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

So is it a sort of a generalization that the creator is the only one that can create order from chaos and/or counter a system that science says is naturally disordering? That even science's own argument proves there is a creator...

Yeah, under the assumption that higher forms of life are an increase of order as opposed to an increase of entropy. (Ignoring the fact that it has nothing to do with the scientific definition of entropy). And under the assumption that there is nothing that can be providing energy to reverse entropy on Earth. (Ignoring the flaming ball of gas in sky.)

Wouldn't humans be considered a form of entropy for the rest of the animal kingdom? How many species have we managed to make go the way of the dodo... including the dodo?

The point about selection is that you get continuous random mutation with every generation, and if that random mutation increases reproductive success, creatures with that mutation increase in number compared to ones without the mutation. Given the reproduction rates of simple organisms and the billion years since the pre Cambrian, it's case of when, not if.

AFAIK, nobody has a strong hypothesis for how the first DNA-based organisms started off. I think the main concept is that some other replicator like RNA dominated until DNA evolved, and that took over. I don't think there's any evidence that would preclude aliens, God or a meteorite dumping the first single celled organisms on earth.

I guess it just seems bizarre and twatty to have a perfectly good model that allows science and religion to coexist (one that's good enough for that bastion of progressiveness the Roman Catholic Church, no less) and want to push this trivially disprovable idiocy of YEC instead.

Demosthenes wrote:

Wouldn't humans be considered a form of entropy for the rest of the animal kingdom? How many species have we managed to make go the way of the dodo... including the dodo?

Naw, having all those different species? That was complete chaos. Therefore whittling them down is actually a form of increasing order!

@mudbunny - I am trying to walk in the shoes of the people who believe that the 2nd law of thermodynamics conflicts with evolution. But I guess if they have thought of it, as opposed to regurgitating someone else's gotcha bullet point, they are just trying to say the false assertion that science is inconsistent by saying that life evolves in a closed system where everything decays over time.

Which isn't even conflicting at all considering something like muscle tissue which needs to break/tear to grow or cell division.

Manta173 wrote:

Robear:
You say that evolution is not random and bring up some good points, but you also mention that mutations are random. These mutations must occur in order for change (evolution) to happen. The fatty cells must have had a very lucky mutation randomly occur before there could be change. This is the sticky point, not the issue of their survival being random., but the fact that the mutation is.

No, mutations are not necessary for natural selection to take place and change the gene pool of the population. You could have natural selection on clones, for example, a stand of birch trees. The fact that mutations are random does not mean that *evolution* is random. It means that randomness is present in reproduction. Natural selection is different from reproduction.

Wouldn't humans be considered a form of entropy for the rest of the animal kingdom? How many species have we managed to make go the way of the dodo... including the dodo?

It all makes sense now: reality TV, more worse drivers on the road, Obamacare...

Robear wrote:

No, mutations are not necessary for natural selection to take place and change the gene pool of the population. You could have natural selection on clones, for example, a stand of birch trees. The fact that mutations are random does not mean that *evolution* is random. It means that randomness is present in reproduction. Natural selection is different from reproduction.

A species must mutate for major changes. Just mixing up existing genes is not enough: new ones have to be created. Mutations are random. Ergo, changes are random.

That's just how it works, man. When bacteria under extreme selection pressure manage to develop a way to eat something they couldn't eat before, that's from random mutation. Even gene selection within a species is random, because which genes mix into which offspring is random. That's less random, but it still has a random component.

You can make some predictions about rolling dice, if you're rolling enough of them, but you can't say anything at all about individual rolls.

I get the idea that you don't like the fact that life is based on a fundamentally random process, but that's just how it is.

Mormech wrote:

I know there are moderate Christians out there who have formed a theology that attempts to incorporate both their scientific and religious beliefs (where the 'seven days' at the beginning of the Bible equate to enormous amounts of time instead of literal 24-hour days),

Or, they understand that Genesis is a creation myth, like all the other religious creation myths, and they don't take it too seriously.

A tl;dr version of that: genes have to come from somewhere. Mixing genes is all well and good, but new genes have to be created, and that happens from mutation.

Robear wrote:
Manta173 wrote:

Robear:
You say that evolution is not random and bring up some good points, but you also mention that mutations are random. These mutations must occur in order for change (evolution) to happen. The fatty cells must have had a very lucky mutation randomly occur before there could be change. This is the sticky point, not the issue of their survival being random., but the fact that the mutation is.

No, mutations are not necessary for natural selection to take place and change the gene pool of the population. You could have natural selection on clones, for example, a stand of birch trees. The fact that mutations are random does not mean that *evolution* is random. It means that randomness is present in reproduction. Natural selection is different from reproduction.

I don't understand the clones point. If some of the trees die due to a specific genetic related cause, then there is no overall change in the population (no evolution). Yes some may survive, but it wasn't related to genetics... Nothing happens except dead trees.

Mormech:
People that think the way you do are the reason why there are people pushing so hard to get creationism in schools. You are the prime example of a strict Christian's worst nightmare. You actively want to influence someone's religious belief to the point where they do not or cannot believe.

Even if science finds universally accepted answers for all questions, there will still be religions. People will still want to believe, and they always will.

manta173 wrote:

Even if science finds universally accepted answers for all questions, there will still be religions. People will still want to believe, and they always will.

Pretty much this. The pictures from those 22 people that got into "what is the meaning of life without god" or "are you ok with the idea that this was all just random chance" basically say to me, that there are people who can't or just don't want to think that this world, this life, this whatever are not part of something larger. Maybe I'm just weird, I don't give a sh*t if there's a plan out there for the world, if there's a reason we came to be... I just want to enjoy my life and do so with people I like and/or love. You know, like you fine folks... wait, maybe I took a wrong turn somewhere.

1. The only way the Theory of Evolution will become fact is if we can somehow observe and record the entire process back from when it started to now. Until then, it will always be a theory, just like every other scientific theory. The fact that Ken Ham thinks that the aim of testing the theory is to turn it into a fact shows how fundamentally he doesn't understand science.

2. Scientific theories can contradict each other. In fact, we have and continue to use mental models we know are incorrect because they allow us to do things easier and faster.

3. The core principle of the Theory of Evolution should more rightly be called "Survival of the Most Adaptable." Environmental and biological process on the surface of the planet are in constant flux. Species that are more capable of adapting to constantly changing pressures will have an advantage.

"It is neither the strongest nor the most intelligent that survive, but the ones that are most responsive to change."

Malor:

The Theory of Evolution is essentially Darwin applying our knowledge of breeding to extrapolate how species develop in nature. The breeding of the poodle was not random, but directed. So was the breeding of modern agricultural plants. We decide where we want to go, and encourage traits that help us get there.

The occurrence and acquisition of mutations is random - like rolling dice, but the process is not. It's like rolling 1-20 but only ever accepting a result of 20. Regardless of how random the dice is, the accepted number set will only ever contain the number 20.

That is, species are directed to adapt to environmental and competitive pressures. How they evolve will be based on what those pressures are, not random. What specific evolutionary traits they acquire to meet a challenge - that part can be random. If we accept both 10 and 20 in our number set, then how many 10s and 20s we have will be random and depend on the distribution of the 1-20 die roll.

The core principle of the Theory of Evolution should more rightly be called "Survival of the Most Adaptable." Environmental and biological process on the surface of the planet are in constant flux. Species that are more capable of adapting to constantly changing pressures will have an advantage.

That's the current thinking. It hasn't always been that way. People define 'fittest' to match current fads and current thinking. It's very much in flux. In the 1970s, it was 'nature is red in tooth and claw', and in the 2010s, people talk a lot about the importance of altruism, even in non-human species. We've redefined what 'fit' means .... forty years ago, it was the nastiest, meanest critters, and these days it's often the friendliest, nicest ones.... and in another forty years, I'll bet they'll have another definition.

The breeding of the poodle was not random, but directed.

That's a different form of creationism, a guiding intelligence picking the ones it likes. In real life, there's no guiding intelligence, just random chance.

Regardless of how random the dice is, the accepted number set will only ever contain the number 20.

With real evolution, an occasional dog will roll 43.

The quote and sentiment was from Charles Darwin himself. It underscores the error in the notion that the strongest survive or that the smartest survive. Neither the most ruthless nor the most altruistic will win in the battle for survival. Those traits are tools, but they're not the winning trait.

There is, by the way, a confirmable intelligence guiding the breeding of domesticated organisms. Granted, I question whether we ought to call that force intelligent sometimes, but technically, it's intelligence.

Those traits are tools, but they're not the winning trait.

We don't know what "the winning trait" is. It's a circular definition: the things that survive are fit, and we know that they were fit because they survived.

Plus, it's pretty clear that Darwin was not entirely right. One of the most successful organisms on earth is the ant, and they haven't changed much for millions of years.

There is, by the way, a confirmable intelligence guiding the breeding of domesticated organisms.

Well, that's what I was saying, that it's a different form of creationism... except with this one, we know there actually IS an intelligence involved. I just put it very poorly.

The whole "survival of the fittest" thing is very much a red herring. In fact, I think it was actually Darwin's brother in law that actually coined the phrase. Darwin himself objected to the interpretation and the Theory of Evolution itself in its modern variation doesn't really make use of it at all.

LarryC wrote:

1. The only way the Theory of Evolution will become fact is if we can somehow observe and record the entire process back from when it started to now. Until then, it will always be a theory, just like every other scientific theory. The fact that Ken Ham thinks that the aim of testing the theory is to turn it into a fact shows how fundamentally he doesn't understand science.

No.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/d4CLb2m.jpg)