DARWIN, EVOLUTION AND PUBLIC OPINION

[MrFudge]

Thanks Freddie

There are many examples of experiments where scientists are seeking to find ways that the DNA might have mutated. Yes there are many examples but these show a breakdown of the DNA rather than a development. Otherwise there is evolution within a kind.

What we have yet to discover is any fossil evidence for a development from one kind to another. In fact classification of kinds remains the main way that scientists seek to understand life.

It is possible to observe development in DNA but what is yet to be found is any way that DNA could ever have evolved. There just isn't the material. Every time there is a breakdown as one would expect from the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, that matter leads to entropy. Funny that!

[Freddie]

There are many examples of experiments where scientists are seeking to find ways that the DNA might have mutated. Yes there are many examples but these show a breakdown of the DNA rather than a development. Otherwise there is evolution within a kind.

This is quite well understood. Mutations can and do result in development. Just look at some of the life that has evolved around Chenobyl — it is unlike that of the surrounding area, being much more resistant to radiation and the such.

As I have stated several times there is just evolution. Saying "evolution within a kind" is exactly the same as saying microevolution — which I have already debunked and shown to be pure creationist conjecture.

What we have yet to discover is any fossil evidence for a development from one kind to another. In fact classification of kinds remains the main way that scientists seek to understand life.

Please see my previous posts which deal with this issue. Several links have been posted showing development from one kind to another, but in the fossil evidence and in DNA. However, it would not matter if there was no fossil evidence — the theory would be just as valid due to the overwhelming DNA evidence. However, there is fossil evidence, vast amounts in fact showing exactly this.

It is possible to observe development in DNA but what is yet to be found is any way that DNA could ever have evolved. There just isn't the material. Every time there is a breakdown as one would expect from the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, that matter leads to entropy. Funny that!

Allow me to reiterate again: the 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing whatsoever to do with either DNA or evolution. It simply not applicable. Evolution does not violate this law or any other piece of established scientific theory.

Additionally we do know the mechanism by which DNA evolves by way of repeated mutations, so this is not an issue.

[The Prophet]

As an additional the 2nd law of thermodynamics does NOT state that all matter leads to entropy. It states that 'in a closed system all matter tends towards entropy’. This differs from your statement in 2 major ways. First of 'tends towards' rather than 'leads to', Not all matter will inevitably be entropic. point two is the 'In a closed system', the earth is not a closed system due to the massive energy source commonly referred to as the sun that floods the surface with vast amounts of solar energy.

[Rob]

As an additional the 2nd law of thermodynamics does NOT state that all matter leads to entropy. It states that 'in a closed system all matter tends towards entropy’. This differs from your statement in 2 major ways. First of 'tends towards' rather than 'leads to', Not all matter will inevitably be entropic. point two is the 'In a closed system', the earth is not a closed system due to the massive energy source commonly referred to as the sun that floods the surface with vast amounts of solar energy.

It all depends very much on how you look at entropy and how you define it. Ultimately they all mean the same thing in a thermodynamic system, but some are much easier to understand and explain in plain English. The definition in terms of entropy is a somewhat abstract one (depending on your formulation of entropy) and generally talks of a process rather than of matter, stating that in a closed thermodynamic system, no process can cause a decrease in the entropy of the system (an idealised isentropic process could leave the change in entropy at zero, but those processes don't occur in the real world).