The flaw in Darwin theory

Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-05-20
User is offlineOffline
The flaw in Darwin theory

Okay, so I spotted this letter to the editor in the Irish Independent today and thought I'd just dump it here for you folks to tear apart:

(Image only because I don't have my usual OCR software installed)

Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
evolution does have a

evolution does have a mechanism for becoming ordered. it's natural selection;
quite simply, natural selection is a process which weeds out all the changes to organisms which do not allow it to survive the circumstances at hand.

genetic mutations are one thing. but since they are random, evolution only works with a mechanism to weed out all the bad changes. that process is natural selection.

example: a virus.
viruses mutate all the time.

if a person is given a drug to try and kil the virus, 99% of the virus is usually killed off.
the other 1% survives, because they just happen to mutate in a way to resist the drug. that drug-resistant virus is then able to reproduce and become the dominant part of the virus in said host.

that is evolution in action; 2 things have happened. genetic mutation, and natural selection. evolution needs both of these things.

GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
I guess the author of this

I guess the author of this article has never heard about the observations made regarding the evolution of the Peppered Moth.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins

Posts: 105
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
The guy's a moron or a liar.

The guy's either ignorant or a liar. The 2nd law only applies to CLOSED SYSTEMS. The earth is NOT a closed system, having received constant energy input from the sun for its 4+ billion years of existence.

There are other subtler issues with his claims, but that's the simple one that even a fundy should understand.

KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
At my campus, we had

At my campus, we had something like this thermodynamics argument going on in the daily student news paper. This is the ignorant post:

LETTER: Thermodynamics disputes evolution

In response to the column claiming that evolution is somehow correct ("Creationism is philosophy, evolution is science," Feb. 8 ), I thought it necessary to provide the facts.

Evolution, like much of science, is a theory. It is a flawed theory, however. The idea that life will become more complex through random chance is a pathetic claim by simple-minded people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a greater being.

Now, unlike evolution's supporters, I can prove my claim. Evolution is thermodynamically impossible. According to the laws of thermodynamics, the amount of entropy in the universe increases or remains constant. Entropy is randomness, disorder and chaos. The idea that more sophisticated life forms would come from less sophisticated ones (i.e. order from disorder) violates that law. Now if you have some way to prove the laws of thermodynamics to be invalid, please let me know, as the proceeds from the discovery would be enough to buy this university several times over. If you want another example, then tell me why Morrill Hall is under renovation. If evolution were true, wouldn't it be unnecessary, as the building would rebuild itself?

Even Darwin called it "natural selection," which is a far cry from evolution. Case in point: Anyone who hunts pheasant knows that flying birds get shot, running birds stay alive. The birds that stay on the ground stay alive, producing more birds that stay on the ground -- that's natural selection, not evolution, as a pheasant is still a pheasant. Now, if you can prove to me that a pheasant can naturally breed with a goat, and that abomination of an offspring can reproduce, I'll eat 10 copies of the Daily. Until then, I would advise that people stop viewing everything in a textbook as absolute truth. And no, I'm not a Bible-thumper by any means, but I am capable of seeing truth, and I know that evolution is not it. So before you plan to write off creationism as a theory, while claiming evolution to be a fact, please do all of us a favor, and go ask your half-monkey/half-fish cousin to evaluate your logic first.

Andrew Symns
Chemical Engineering

Now, this is the normal, ignorant rant of these people. Us physics graduate students took terms explaining what is flawed in his argument, so far all normal routine.

Here's where it gets interesting, he gets a public reply in the paper from faculty at the college in engineering

LETTER: Thermodynamics law was misapplied

As faculty members in the College of Engineering, we would like to first express our sincere apologies to the faculty and students of Iowa State that someone as ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics as Andrew Symns ("Thermodynamics disputes evolution," Feb. 10) has managed to "slip through the cracks" and is now very close to graduating in chemical engineering. Clearly, we in the college are doing an inadequate job of educating our students.

In response to Mr. Symns letter, we are reminded of the famous quotation by the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan, "We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts." Whether Mr. Symns and others choose to believe or disbelieve in evolution is no concern of ours. However, when they misstate and misuse scientific facts in an attempt to prove their point, they engage in behavior that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Mr. Symns states that, "the amount of entropy (that is, disorder) in the universe increases or remains constant," and implies that because of this, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states it is impossible for order to arise from chaos. However, this is completely untrue. A more valid statement of the Second Law would be, "the entropy of an isolated system increases or remains constant," where an isolated system is a system that does not interact with its surrounding. Since the universe has no surroundings to interact with, it is, by definition, an isolated system. This means that the entropy of an individual system can decrease, so long as it interacts with its surroundings in such a way that the total entropy of both system and surroundings increases. In other words, order can arise from chaos, so long as the disorder somewhere else in the universe increases even more.

We see order arising from chaos all the time. For example, on a snowy day, water droplets freeze to form the beautiful crystals we call snowflakes. The snowflakes are far more ordered than the water droplets, but this does not violate the Second Law, because in order for this to happen, heat is transferred to the atmosphere causing the entropy of the atmosphere to increase even more than the decrease in entropy caused by the formation of the snowflakes. Similarly, living creatures do not exist in isolation. They interact with their surroundings all the time by breathing, eating, drinking, etc. Thus, there is no violation of the Second Law if the creature becomes more ordered over time, so long as its interactions with its surroundings causes the entropy of the surroundings to increase even more.

In an attempt to belittle those whose belief systems differ from his own ("go ask your half-monkey/half-fish cousin to evaluate your logic first"), Mr. Symns has instead demonstrated his own ignorance. His letter reminds us of another famous quotation, this one from Samuel Johnson: "It is better to be thought a fool and remain silent, then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Michael Olsen
Assistant Professor
Mechanical Engineering

Shankar Subramaniam
Assistant Professor
Mechanical Engineering

I love this reply Laughing out loud It's full of verbal bitchslaps following the apology for letting this guy pass his classes. (I didn't post the links, they throw off the page break. I someone wants them I can post them)