After understanding the laws of thermodynamics how can evolution be true?
351098
This is the "if things are always meant to go to greater entropy, how can random molecumels reverse entropy and become organized" argument, right?  Ok-If you really thought that nothing could go from a state of disorganization to a state of organization, THEN you would have a good reason not to clean your room, stack the dishes neatly, build a house from a pile of bricks, etc etc.  Obviously, things can go from a state of disorganization to a state of organization-it happens constantly, all the time.  First, the law is involved in closed systems, where there is a set amount of energy-Clearly, Earth gets a whole whopping amount of energy every day, or everything WOULD fall apart.  But even in a local sense, life and evolution DO increase entropy, just like building a house from a pile of bricks does.  The equation is one of energy usage as well as organization.  The energy that turns into waste heat (maximum entropy) in the process of building a house, or building an animal, is greater than the organization that results from that energy.  So, you have to generate a lot of waste heat to get a little organization, and even in this small system you have increased entropy-Surely you can feel it that the energy to do the dishes is *way* more than the resultant organized dishes...  Evolution has used up an enormous amount of energy, and increased entropy-and the only way it can work is that it gets a constant large infusion of new energy all the time, from the sun (or geothermal processes in the case of deep sea extremophiles)- In a very real sense, life is ac extremely wasteful proposition, like the worst chronic shoppaholic-but its ok for the shopaholic, if they are given a billion dollars a day to do it.
858007
The second law of Thermodynamics has to do with Entropy.  Entropy is the tendancy of a closed system to move to a higher degree of disorder (lower energy state).  Life itself breaks the second law of thermodynamics, at least for the short term.  When a seed is planted, or when an animal or child is created by it's parents, a single cell grows into a more complicated, higher energy structure (life).  However, on the way there, the organism does consume more energy than it gives back, so conservation of energy is never lost either.  \n\nThe theory of evolution would be another example that would break the 2nd Law.  I am not arguing for or against the theory of evolution, I am just stating the the theory.  If a single celled organism evolves into a multi-celled organism, that's a more complicated structure with more energy.  Again, this is considered to be a short-term gain.  The one thing that Entropy has working against it is time.  In the short-term, physical processes like life seem to beat Entropy, then entropy seams to catch up (death).  However, in the extremely long term (cosomolically speaking, 1 * 10 ^76 years or more), entropy never completely catches up with time.\n\nHere's a quote from a great book on cosmology (The Five Ages of the Universe. by Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin, published by Simon and Schuster New York, copyright 1999, Page 168.)\n\n"The universe effectively doles out a fixed amount of energy over an infinite span of time.  This conservation practice underscores the energy crisis of the future and defines exactly what it means for the universe to 'slow down' as it gets older.\n     The universe thus slows down dramitically, but never quite runs out of steam.  Can one think of the universe, with this never-ending quality as having an eternal life?  Perhaps, but that would be rather optimistic point of view, Paul Davies, a renowned physicist and writer, has described this late phase of the evolution of the universe as an 'eternal death'.  This ever dying universe continues to evolve and continues to slow down, but never reaches a final moment of deathlike closure.\n   No matter how old the universe becomes, interesting physical processes continue to operate."
216820
I think second law of thermodynamics is that physical systems tend to evolve toward states of higher entropy that is toward more disorganization.\n\nIt's not a law in a conventional sense since although rare, and unlikely, something can go from a state of high entropy to one of lower entropy.\n\nIf you toss index cards numbered one through 100 and toss it into air, it's most likely for the cards to land in a random order. But if you toss it enough times, it can land in perfect order, i.e. one to 100.
112767
Your main question is, "can you prove that evolution is true?"  The answer to that is, no, one cannot prove with absolute certainty that it is "true".  But one could prove it to be false (although that hasn't been done), and that's what makes it a scientific theory, as opposed to belief.\n\nYou also add a request to, "PLEASE TELL MY WHY CREATION IS NOT REAL AND EVOLUTION IS."  One cannot demonstrate scientifically that creation is "not real".  Again, falsifiability is a hallmark of scientific hypothesis-building and testing.  Creationism cannot be scientifically disproved in this way (as it is based on belief rather than a weighing of evidence); therefore, it is not science.  \n\nSince you have years of study of this debate, you know the evidence for evolution.  And you know that it doesn't prove that it is "real", simply that it is a plausible theory that provides a plausible explanation for the physical evidence, as well as scientifically testable hypotheses.\n\nUnfortunately, in your zeal for the truth, you have simply created a straw man argument.
444517
Evolution is fact.  Think about it.
478495
If someone does then they haven't told me.  As for self sustaining energy, the second law of thermodynamics forbids any such thing from existing.
269598
you are right.  evolution is a statistical imposibility\n\nthe odds of even one species evolving like the bat for instance.  with allits specialized functions and abilities....   its like a tornado hitting a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747.  and thats just one species.  also i like it when you confront athiests and agnostics with hard fact PROOVING evolution CANNOT HAVE HAPPENED.  like this.\n\nthe earths rotation is slowing.  this is a measured, proven, scientific, fact.  If you were to rewind time adding as you go back the ammount of speed lost. you would find that as little as 1 mil years ago. the earth would be spinning so fast that the centripital force would cause everything to be flung off into space.  \n\nthats just one way and there are many other ways to disprove evolution.  oddly enough whenever you tell these things to an evolutionist and or athiest/agnostic.  they just kind of stand there with a not so bright look on thier face...
252845
evolution is the constant change in physiology a life form undergoes to remain adapted to its environment. Its hard not to believe in evolution. What is hard to belive is that God created all species in their current state and doesnt change them. I believe thats just the bibles answer because it was written before evolution was known.
1042151
Evolution is a *fact*.  It is not a theory.  The theory part of evolution is related to the *mechanism* of evolution.  The best known theory of evolution is Charles Darwin's, which is called natural selection, or "survival of the fittest."  It is his explanation on how evolution can occur.  This theory may or may not be true (and it most likely is because it makes a whole heck of a lot of sense), but it does not make evolution itself impossible if that particular theory didn't pan out.  \n\nPeople don't want to "believe" in evolution because they feel it is contradicting their particular religious beliefs, which, by the way, is just silly.  Another reason could be that it is difficult for us to comprehend things that happen over a long period of time, like a small stream that has carved out an entire valley.  Evolution of living organisms takes a really really *long* time.  It doesn't happen overnight.
135589
Don't listen to the first answer, he didn't even bother to look it up.\n\nThe second law of thermodynamics is more about the direction of energy flow.  It is really a statement about the 1st law and how many of it's processes never take place.\n\nFrom it, you get things like "Heat will not flow spontaneously from a colder body into a warmer body." And "Heat energy can not be compleaely transformed into mechanical work." Also, "It is impossible to construct an operational perpetual motion machine."\n\nIf evolutionists heads explode over this it is because of the consistant and repeated misuse of this by creationists.  In fact, most of the major creationists now conceede that they have been way off on this for a long time.  It does really make me worry about the education system in this country when creationists still think they can go around saying this.  \n\nOK, one more time: The second law and entropy apply to CLOSED SYSTEMS.  Since you haven't even bothered to research this - news flash! - THE EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.  This may be new to some creationists but their is a big ball of fire out there called the sun where the earth gets most of it's energy.  Living things use energy from lower trophic levels to assemble new molecules.\n\nEvery time one of these creationist think that this is a valid argument, how come they never wonder why their aren't a bunch of physicits pointing this out to biologists?
739874
To evolve a thing must have a point at wich to begin,in the limited thought mode.\nevoltion is a constant in the universe, just like change. Evolution is Change and that is the only known constant in this Universe. as we understand it. \nCan time repeat itself, maybe. \nNot as we understand and accept things, so no, evolution cannot repeat itself.
636455
To be sure, the theory has a lot of gaps.  So it's not a Law.  All's it takes is one scientifically provable discovery that doesn't fit the theory to launch a search for a new theory that will explain the new information while keeping the old proven stuff too.  A good example is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  Newtonian Mechanics fails at extreme sizes and speeds.  Relativity so far has been able to explain all the variances found to date at those extremes, but has not been proven to be 100% valid all the time, so it's not a law yet.  If you can discover something that invalidates evolutionary theory, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize!
229992
Yes.  It is typically taught as fact.  In reality evolution should not even be classified as a theory, as it has never gotten out of the hypothesis stage.
658556
The accepted fact of energy conservation. Energy cannot be born or destroyed just reshaped. Everything has mass, mass is made of matter, matter is made of energy. And since energy cannot be destroyed or created in the first place there has to be a source of energy how else could energy come to exist. That energy is the building blocks of the cosmos. now how could energy become energy out of nothing if there was no source to create it? \n\nAlso one is the chances of creation coming to existence in the beggining there is absolutely nothing. Then more or less the chances of creation coming into existence would be one one hundrenth over infinity (since nothing existed) yet how come the universe existed if there was no powerful intelligent force to back it up?\n\nAnd about life. could life suddenly materialize out of non-life? as some evolutionists (Evolution dying science)propose so? If so how could non-life turn into life if there was no intelligent desing behind it?\n\n\nThe Theory of evolution is a lie. Creationism defeats evolution. Let me explain: Science has proven that DNA is the building blocks of life, and all scientists agree that DNA is material that stores information on the creation of an entity. micro-Evolution has been proven, but macro as in: "Massive modifications on a large scale?". Evolutionists argue that since everything evovled from bacteria you have to consider this fact. DNA is programmed to produce the same amount and quality of DNA they are born with. Then Why does the genetic code of the bacteria has significantly less genetic input as compared to that of the human's this proves the falcity of genetic evolution from bacteria to current day human. In all experiments with evolution. it is obeserved that creatures mutate only by shuffling or rearanging their genetic structure. think of it as Hyper Active Malnurished Albino chiwawa has a genetic structure of A-G-H-I then the mutation occurs and her oofsrping is a Hyper Active Malnurished Dehydrated Chiwawa, it has a genetic structure of A-G-H-I they are both the same creatures but only the latter "evolved" but never was it observed the a mutation had produced extra genetic code. so if a bacteria has only 10000 units in its genetic materia how come somthing as simple as a plant has x 10 more genetic materia if no intelligent being had put the extra materia there in the first place. since DNA is so complex even one modification to a molecule can tottally change the product ie: instead of a butterfly it's now a moth how could we have so much diverse and stalble life forms if everything evovled from an ameoba?  Religion was right, GOD does exist, science is only publicizing this now.
978981
In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.
49268
I think more than any other thing--more than all other things combined, perhaps--there is a single, most important fundamental that must be understood: The Law of Mass Action.  The barrier to understanding evolution stems from the word "random."  We hear "random," and the instinct is to say, "Bull pucky."  But randomness, applied to the law of mass action, becomes every driving force in the universe, and the origin of all order.\n\nThis is a ubiquitous law in nature.  The hardest part of understanding something like evolution is trying to wrap your mind around the NUMBERS.  Those huge, infinitely-large number that are used to discuss propability are truly mind-boggling.  Once you realize that there are other examples of driving forces overcoming immense odds, your whole perspective on the probability of evolution changes.\n\nTake biochemistry.  This is some stuff that's completely undisputed.  A protein starts as a chain--or several chains--of amino acids, all strung together.  Miraculously, this protein folds into the specific conformation necessary to perform its function by the simple process of RANDONLY banging around.  That's it!  It just bangs this way and that, folds left and right, over and under, driven by nothing more than the RANDOM bumping and shifting caused by thermal energy bumping tiny articles against eachother.\n\nBUT!!!  Once it gets to a thermodynamically-stable conformation, it basically stays put.  It takes a million random bumps left and right, up and down, for each of the two joints connecting every individual amino acid on the thread, but once it goes the right way, it's mission is accomplished.  And all of this happens in the blink of an eye!  We have no concept of how incredibly quickly these minor bumps and bangs occur until the target reaches its mark.\n\nOr take diffusion.  This is an extrodinarily powerful driving force, and the law that governs it is so simple that it sounds absurd!  Here it goes:  It is more probable that something will go from where it is to where it isn't, than it is for something to go from where it isn't to where it is.  Done!  That's it.  I've just told you in a tiny nutshell what chemical engineers spend two years studying with differntial equations, labs, and computer models.  That's thermostatistics summed up.  And yet because I understood that very basic fact, I was able to understand the complex functions of the nerve cell far better than 99% of my molecular biology classmates.\n\nBear with me a bit longer: when a neuron fires, ions rush in and out of the cell in ways that depolarize and repolarize the electrical charge of the membrane.  It's really complicated-sounding stuff.  But what it really boils down to is that potassium ions (K) are concentrated in one place (mostly inside the cell), and sodium ions (Na) are concentrated somewhere else (mostly outside the cell).  All of these ions are banging around, this way and that.  Some go left, and some go right, but the membrane staps them from going through.  The special channels open up.  Na ions, being mostly outside the cell, will be far more likely to go inside the cell--where they aren't--than they are to come out of the cell--where they already are.  THat's all it is--you're more likely to go from where you already are to where you aren't than vice-versa.  It's so simple it stupid.  Yet the movement of any GIVEN ION is COMPLETELY RANDOM--and yet this action happens so quickly and so consistently and so reliably that this become the driving mechanism of all biological activity.  This random ion movement, taken applied to a massive system where thermal bumping happens millions of times per second for biliions of billions of ions happens in a reliable and concerted way every time you blink.  Every pixel you see on your screen right now is the product where trillions of random molecular collisions happened, but a handful of signific
500077
1) Based on current observations of an accelerating expansion of the universe, there is no way of telling where the limit may be. Also, it does not wrap around onto itself. \n\n2) Saying what "existed" before time existed and before everything was created is too philisophical of a question to get any reasonable answer.\n\n3) Life beginning is probably more suited in the Biology section. It's not an easy explanation easier because it took many complex and improbable reactions to occur so you're looking at a fairly large time-table as to when life probably began. The thing is that the reactions can happen, but it just takes a long time for it all to come together correctly especially considering the probabilistic nature of things at such small scales.\n\nedit: What your teacher is talking about is Entropy, the measurement of chaos. This is a common misconception. Our current laws of physics say that TOTAL entropy must increase. If you look at a protein forming or any other complex molecule, you'll notice that the protein has become more complex and less chaotic. What our laws tell us is that the WHOLE system must increase in chaos. So when the complex system forms, its surroundings must increase in entropy that is more then the decrease in entropy associated with creating the complex/less chaotic molecule. So basically, the total entropy of a system will increase but within the system, processes can undergo entropy reductions as long as there is a corrosponding and greater increase in entropy somewhere else in the system.