General

[quote=frazzlsnazzl]Theres currently a thread floating about in the Spastic Basil Sea about evolution and 40% Republicans reject evolution. And heres my 2 cents that i believe completely debunk that crap theory

Law of Conservation of Mass - Nothing can be created nor destroyed (very basic definition of the law in order to conserve time and effort).

I decided to look up this article on wikipedia just to kill time. Side note (for all those buffoons that are saying that wikipedia is garbage, id like you to go through and prove that all those citations provided in the references section of the article are false.) Now im not saying that wikipedia can beat out college education, but this was just for a brief understanding of what the law actually states without having to devote thousands of dollars and weeks of time in chemistry classes to gain a hardcore understanding of the law. But i read something that was peculiar. In order for the Law to actually work, our universe has to be enclosed and no energy is able to escape and dissipate into nothingness. If energy were able to escape and dissipate, then our modern laws of chemistry are worthless and nothing we hold to be true currently is credible.

So how is it that if we supposedly exploded into existence and energy dissipated, that our laws of chemistry still work?

2nd cent of thought: Environmental adaptation vs actual evolution

I believe more in environmental adaptation than evolution. Evolution means that we actually picked up some kind of mutation from adapting to an environment or some kind of new variable from an otherwise normal area.

Experiment: Take 100 fish and throw them on land. Record how quickly they die, wash rinse repeat for about 30 days. In those 3000 fish, i guarantee that not a single one of them would survive. Now for this experiment to ever ever work, the cellular structure in the fish would have to somehow genetically reengineer itself to adapt to the environment, allowing it to breathe on land. What kind of catalyst would have to be present to see that kind of change in a relatively short amount of time as opposed to millions of years?

Now, i can understand that people get used to cold weather conditions or hot weather (as long as its not extreme), because we can naturally adapt. However, if you took a person that was suited to warm weather and moved them to cold weather, you would see, over time, that the person would adapt to the changed environment. The person would not retain ability to resist both elements at the same time, as they would gain resistance to one and vulnerability to another. There is no permanent change. However, for the theory to be true, we would have to retain it, somehow it gets embedded into our cellular structure/ chemistry, and is able to be passed down generation after generation. It hasnt happened, it wont happen.

Now heres the challenge, refute anything ive said, with hardcore fact, not some hearsay ^&*(. Give me a good argument, since ive spent my time working to provide an argument against evolution with real science, not even religion or anything to do with my faith.[/quote]

[i]My first point will address the inaccuracies in your argument about the law of conservation of mass and the big bang.[/i]

Actually, the law is the conservation of mass-energy. Mass and energy are interchangeable, they can change from one into the other, and so the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is always constant. In the big bang, a compressed amount of energy probably transformed into a mixture of mass and their kinetic energy.

[i]My second point will address your fishy experiment.[/i]

Taking a species into an environment where it cannot survive is not evolution. There would have to be a fish with a severe mutation for that experiment to create any evolution of the fish. Evolution is the buildup of gradual changes due to smaller mutations that give a comparative advantage for survival and reproduction. For example, our ancestors lived in the ocean (life began in water) and we don't. Why? The process will have taken millions of years. Firstly a creature with gills has the ability to get its oxygen from water and from bubbles in the ocean, allowing it to respire more easily and survive better -> Eventually that mutation will spread through reproduction. Then, one creature mutates to develop a small air hole allowing it to transpire air above water. Then, the mutation creates an air sac for better absorption of oxygen. Then the air sac gains muscles. Then, more air sacs develop.

See? The process is gradual and continuous. We [b]know[/b] that mutations can occur through genetics. We [b]know[/b] that some mutations will change the way an organism operates in a small way. We [b]know[/b] that some mutations can be passed down by genetics. So by logic, it's very clear that genetically transferable mutations can reproduce themselves and lead to a changed species.

[i]My third point will address your flawed idea on adaptation[/i]

Adaptation is not the same as evolution. Putting more clothes on in cold weather is completely different from the gradual buildup of mutations due to comparative advantage. Now, if instead you used this train of development:

1) A species lives on a mild continent
2) The continent breaks up due to an earthquake and the species is divided
3) Half of the species floats to the Antarctic on their part of the continent, the other half floats to the equator.
4) Due to the cold, only those with the thickest hair and pale skin survive in antarctica. Due to the heat, only those with darker skin survive on the equator.
5) At the equator, the species develops to having dark skin.
6) At antarctica, the species develops to having thick hair and pale skin.

That would be correct, and that would be evolution. A mutation (hair / skin tone) that gives a survival advantage reproduces and evolves the species. Your claim "It hasnt happened, it wont happen" is incorrect, because what I described is the process that caused there to be different races of humans.

No, because you're saying evolution contradicts the second law.
It doesn't because the second law only applies to a closed system.
The earth is not a closed system.

[quote=frazzlsnazzl]@Fade2Black - Doesnt that...justify...what i had said to begin with?[/quote]

You're implying that there is a magical wall somewhere in the universe which represents a border.

Obviously you cannot grasp the concept of 'nothing' in a certain area.

@Fade2Black - Doesnt that...justify...what i had said to begin with?

[quote=frazzlsnazzl]Well that just results in how the chips fall sometimes. But ive seen this argument before. Those moths could have a reengineering and develop a camouflage that protects them from being eaten (adaptation) but when they dont need that anymore, they will revert, they wont stay that way forever. But i can say that just hunt the moths to extinction then you will never see a change so they evolved, but thats not what were arguing.

@Fade2Black - Alright so let me try to put in in a different perspective . I have one big ass circle. inside the circle is a smaller circle that is dashed, and whatever is inside the dashed circle can flow freely in and out, but can never escape the outer circle. The "material" in the dashed circle can represent energy, and can flow freely inside and out of the "subset" that is open but can never dissipate outside of the larger circle?[/quote]

Basically yes, because the Earth constantly receive energy from the Sun making it an open system.

Theres not to much difference in the conditions required to either live in water or on land. The only purpose either habitat provides is oxygen. Sea creatures extract oxygen through the water and others extract it through the atmosphere.

There was never a point where one creature had to spontaneously grow lungs and drop it's gills and struggle onto land, it was most likely a transition where the creature could adapt to extract oxygen from both land and water (There are many species that can do this nowadays to!)

So it is likely that through chance, one species branched off and then could inhabit either land or water. From here the species most likely branched off into land.

Evolution doesn't demand a quick or drastic change in the creatures habits. If a new feature is obtained that doesn't hinder it's survival in it's current habitat (perhaps even unnoticeable in it's current habitat) gives it an advantage in another habitat, then if that species seperated into two branches (One with the feature, one without. This is unnoticeable in the current habitat), then if migration occurs (E.G From water to land), the branch with the extra feature will survive.

^^^ Natural Selection

Edit: Also TS you're arguments are wrong and flawed from the start... You talking about the conservation of ENERGY (The law refers to energy, not mass) and constant reference to Chemistry (even though a lot of the things you talk about are actually biological or physics). The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transfered. One example of a transfer of energy is matter, as in, matter holds a great amount of energy (E = mc^2 ).

You're idea of a closed universe is also flawed, as energy cannot just 'diffuse' into nothing, it simply keeps going. Because you wanted to bring up Physics early on in the thread, i'd like to mention one of Newtons laws. "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." Something (in this case, matter) will keep travelling through the Universe for an infinite amount of time at a constant speed until another force acts upon it.

Nothing had to 'dissipate' anywhere, it just had to be transfered into another form (E.g MATTER, ehhm, not much of that around is there...)

Things to not adapt to there surrounding genetically. Some physical adoptions (temporary, like the ones you mention with the moth argument) can take place, such as an animal being able to shed it's fur if it's too hot. How ever, an animal being able to shed it's fur due to a random mutation that allowed the fur to fall out under certain conditions (Natural Selection) and the animal ripping all of it's fur out in frustration (Your theory) are two different things.

Dam is that wall made of bricks.

Well that just results in how the chips fall sometimes. But ive seen this argument before. Those moths could have a reengineering and develop a camouflage that protects them from being eaten (adaptation) but when they dont need that anymore, they will revert, they wont stay that way forever. But i can say that just hunt the moths to extinction then you will never see a change so they evolved, but thats not what were arguing.

@Fade2Black - Alright so let me try to put in in a different perspective . I have one big ass circle. inside the circle is a smaller circle that is dashed, and whatever is inside the dashed circle can flow freely in and out, but can never escape the outer circle. The "material" in the dashed circle can represent energy, and can flow freely inside and out of the "subset" that is open but can never dissipate outside of the larger circle?

Whether or not the universe is a closed system that does not change the fact that the Earth is an open system.
Subsets of a closed system can be open systems.

The universe is a closed system because our laws of chemistry wont, not may, wont work without a closed system. not just some farce passed around to plead a case

@SwordStruck - your reply is fail. go look at a dictionary, i know what the difference is thanks.

@takupirate - so are you saying that i take some penguins and throw them in a desert that eventually enough genetic mutations will occur in an observable amount of time that they will adapt?

Basically was going to write what was above.