Does not the theory of evolution violate the law of entropy?
374098
Obviously you dont know how things work.\n\nCheck this out, a fish cannot give birth to a different species fish. What if a mutation occurs and the fish has a extra fin? Due to natural selection that fish is better suited to the environment, and mates more and the mutation becomes more often, vwooleh, we have a new species of fish assuming the other just pure breeds or it has migrated away.\n\nWe all started very basic, that basic thing mutates and mutates into say 10 basic things, those basic things become more complex and so those 10 basic things multiply into 100 more complex things each only breeding within its own mutation.
346312
Before answering the question definitively, I think it may important to be aware of a few important details.  When we speak of "evolution" we are generally referring to the notion of species evolving by means of natural selection.  Many evolutionary biologists argue over the details, but all agree that natural selection is part of the evolutionary mechanism.  And so, there are actualy more than one "theory of evolution" when it comes to the details.  \n\nLet's assume for arguments sake that your question therefore could be slightly rephrased into: is evolution by means of natural selection truly happening?  The answer, I think, is a clear yes.  You may have heard some say that evolution is a controversial theory among scientists.  That is actually not the case.  what is controversially discussed are, as I pointed out above, the details of the evolutionary mechanisms.\n\nNow, assuming that evolution by natural selection is real, and therefore, that not only we as human beings evolved, and that we furthermore are still evolving, does that mean that therefore religious believes are impossible?  Again, I think the answer is clear.  And this time it is no.  science and religion are absolutely reconcilable.  But as always the devil is in the details...  When some scientists say that science is the only way to the truth and therefore evolution has done away with God, the problem is that they are making a metaphysical, that is anon-scientific, philosophical statement: The statement cannot be tested by a scientific experiment.  Consequently, if the statement were true, it would prove itself false, since it is not scientific.  It is, what we call in philosophy, the liar's paradox (If I told you I am a San Franciscan, and all San franciscans are liars, am I telling the truth?).  On the other hand, when a biblical literalist tells you that the Bible has told us how the world was created in six 24 hour days (and one Sunday of rest...), the problem lies in reading the biblical text literally.  The Bible is full of what in theology we call obscure text passages...  There are contradictions, there repetitions, etc.  For example, if Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, how come he dies at the end of the fifth book and writes about it?  I could list more examples, but I think you get the point.\n\nSo, we can conclude that indeed a materialistic interpretation of the world (i.e., science is the only way to the truth) and a biblical literalism (i.e., the biblical text is to be read literal by the mere literal meaning of its words) would present two irreconcilable positions.  But as we have seen, both positions are problematic.\n\nIf we allow for science and religion to communicate with one another, they can actually inform each other and in there dialogue provide one interpretation of the human experience of reality.  Accordingly, religion would thus attempt to interpret the world in light of Scripture, but also its tradition.  Science on the other hand tries to attempt the same using its own very particular methodologies.  The concepts from both disciplines are then brought to a dialogue with one another, and from that dialogue one new understanding can emerge.  And with this new understanding we engage yet once again in a new cycle of interpretation.  As such, even religion science, and definitely our overall understanding of our human experience of reality grows continuously, or if you like, evolves.\n\nI hope that helps.
735749
entropy. it never decreases.
114807
Entropy increases, never decreases.
123134
Of course it's possible. Evolution is merely the mechanism of God's creation.\n\nPersonally, I feel the inherent contradiction is in the opposite direction. Rejection of evolutionary theory reduces God to a deceiver, to a 'God of parts' filling in the gaps in our understanding of creation, rather than underpinning it in it's entirety, it also rejects one of the greatest of God's gifts, the faculty of pure reason.\n\nPeople are, of course, welcome to their opinion, but I feel that the belief that God would create the universe in seven days, ten thousand years ago and then fix it in such a manner as to give all the impressions to the contrary is close to blasphemy
567497
No. Variation only indicates limited change.  Yes, there is indeed variation, but as far as such drastic changes as Evolution indicates, the changes that must occur for Evolution to be true do not occur.  The change is not that drastic.\n\nThere are limits to the changes.  Our own tampering with fruits and vegetables show that we may "create" a new fruit or vegetable, but seeds will not be produced.  It is because we have caused an unnatural thing to be produced.  \n\nYes, there are definite "Laws".
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...
1135919
You're right, living things reduce entropy, but they consume energy.    Sorry, no violation of thermodynamics.  no metaphysical home runs.
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there yet.
683440
There isn't a purpose to evolution.  It's simply what happens when you get imperfect replicators competing for limited resources.  It's like asking to purpose of current traveling through the path of least resistance.  There's no purpose there, it's just what the laws of nature dictate must happen in that circumstance.
69537
Conclusive no, it's still a theory. However, in 2005 probably more than any other year, the theory has received it most compelling validation through DNA analysis.\n\nComparison of DNA between species is mapping out a family tree which matches what the theory of evolution predicts.
315210
It's not "by chance," it's the result of natural selection and other selective pressures.  I'm sorry if evolution doesn't make sense to you, but the basic principles are effectively proven fact, and it makes sense to anyone who's every actually studied it.  It makes just as much sense as it did to say the Earth is round and revolves around the sun.  People had a really hard time accepting those facts because if you look out your window they Earth looks flat, and if you watch the sun move across the sky it looks like it's moving around us rather than the other way round.  Without having seen the scientific evidence to support these claims, people thought they didn't make sense, so they rejected them.  Now people are doing the same thing with evolution.  Of course it doesn't make sense if you don't understand it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.  Or should we also reject quantum mechanics, atomic theory, the physical nature of an electron, and Einsteins theory of relativity.\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes
517293
no thought cannot have expression for entropy, as thought has no direction.\n\nand moreover thought is a property not a particle, so it cannot ever have entropy.
28508
the more entropy u have in the molecule the bigger chance for entropy at a larger scale.\nthat is not always the case, there r exceptions, but on average is true :-)
491745
"Survival of the fittest" is indeed a misleading formulation. There is no absolute measurement for fitness - what makes you more likely to survive today might hinder you tomorrow and vice versa. So it is not like everything is striving upwards that previously determined fitness slope. Therefore many of the interpretations of Darwinism from early last century where wrong. You can't derive rules from evolution like "society should weed out weak indivudals" or stuff like that. \n\nIt follows that the only thing that really matters in terms of evolution is to survive, or more precisely, to exist. Personally I go as far as to say that "reproduce as much as possible" is not the only strategy. I consider stones as a special case of evolution - they manage to survive for a very long time, too. I see evolution as just "the likely thing will happen".\n\nAs for dropping dead: it is not the individual that evolution operates on. It is the population, ie the gene that evokes a specific behaviour. Death can also be predetermined by evolution, because it might be benefitial for the population.\n\nEdit: in reply to your additional comment, thanks, and I am not saying that death is necessarily always a good idea. Humans live quite long, probably also because they are costly to manufacture. Insects don't live very long, but are also very successful. We humans are free to set our own goals for life, and if it is to live long and well, so be it. The ones who figure out how to live longer will live longer ;-)
1011719
I sure hope you are either joking or 12 years old. The second law of thermodynamics does Not say everything goes from order to disorder. What it says is that in a closed system the total amount of entropy (disorder) tends to increase.\n\nyou can think of entropy as being like garbage, as long as you have a place to toss it, you can increase local order, of course it takes work to toss out the garbage but in our case we have the sun which does this work for us.\n\nIn the earths case it is simple physics, for every photon we receive from the sun, we radiate about 20 photons. The earth maintains a constant temperature because the wavelength of the light from the sun is much shorter (higher energy per photon) than the light ( mostly infared) given off by the earth. So for every photon that we receive from the sun the fact we give off 20 photons, provides a net gain of about 19 units of order. Think again as the 19 net photons given off as a loss of entropy. \n\nBasically if the creationist argument were correct you could never clean your house and it would continue to get more cluttered, but we throw out the garbage, and that is what the sun allows the earth to do.\n\nReally, Most of us learned this physics in high school. When creationists make these bogus arguments they are merely making themselves look like fools. They do not help their cause at all.
436081
There you have the 2nd (I think) law od thermodynamics.\n\nLook it up, but it's the commonly quoted one about entropy always increasing in a closed system.\n\nIn laymans terms, the amount of disorder always increases, as things naturally seek a lower energy state.  Eventually, when the universe is 'run down' it will consist only of a uniform soup of particles.\n\nFortunately we don't have to worry about that quite yet!"