Wednesday nightCap

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Sym Gardiner

    What a load of rubbish.

    • Mitch82

      How so?

      • Sym Gardiner

        I’m not really sure where to start. How about that evolution is nailed down as proven science? Evolution is as flakey as Global Warming. Both are defended by the “its science so you are not allowed to argue against it” Taliban. My particular argument against evolution is that what we observe is closer to devolution (reduction) than evolution (increase).

        • Mitch82

          You need to be more specific about your argument. Have you read The Origin Of Species? The science is sound.

          If you ever get the chance to sit down with a biologist, I think you’ll find that not only can they answer any questions and show you examples/proof, but they’ll welcome evolution being challenged. That’s the beauty of science – the entire scientific method is based on being challenged constantly, and being able to stand up to challenges.

          • Sym Gardiner

            I’ve done a lot of study over the years, although I concede biology is not my area. However evolution seems to run contrary to some pretty foundational principals of physics and logic. I have yet to see these addressed in a simple and robust way. Then again, I tend to adopt the approach that if its too complex for someone to explain, then its either false or the person doesn’t really understand it.

          • TheContrarian

            “owever evolution seems to run contrary to some pretty foundational principals of physics and logic”

            It absolutely does not run counter to any physical principle Please identify one if you think so.

          • Mitch82

            The point I’m trying to make in getting you to pose a specific question is that evolution pretty much answers everything. You can’t really say “defies physics and logic” without posing a specific question to which you believe that statement might apply.

            Further, I don’t think you can really get away with saying that evolution defies physics and logic if you’re using that in support of Creationism. It’s just wrong.. so so wrong.

        • TomTom

          Lol then you have no experience of the scientific endeavour. I am taking a stats paper at summer school at the moment, and it’s annoying me how much of it involves questioning the integrity and veracity of the data. You don’t just do some simple means of data and be done with it, you subject to a whole raft of stupid maths (which doesn’t really make sense to me, because I am simple) and procedures to determine whether the data is pointing to the right conclusion or not.

          It hurts my brain how much analysis and doubting scientists do of their data before they even think about publishing it.

          TL,DR: I fucking hate stats, but at least I understand the scientific method much better than someone who just dismiss evolution as being “false if too hard for me to understand.”

          • Sym Gardiner

            Lol TomTom. I know what you mean. I did 2nd year Quantitative Methods for Economics and Finance. Terribly boring. However it did show, along with my 6 years at uni that a reductionist approach is a very valuable tool.
            Mitch82… There’s a little thing called thermodynamics. Part of the principle of thermodynamics is that systems reduce or devolve. Thermodynamics focuses on energy. However this principle applies to pretty much everything left to its own devices. Its what says you will never get a perpetual motion machine.
            Evolution asks us to believe that something, left to is own devices, did the opposite. Instead of devolving, it evolved. Prima facia this seems odd at least.
            As I say, I’m no biology expert. However I shouldn’t need to be. An explanation of why evolution can occur despite seeming to run counter to a founding principle of our physical world should be as plain as day. I haven’t seen such an explanation.

          • TomTom

            The Second Law of Thermodynamics? Read this: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441 Basically says that order can arise on a local basis whilst the system as a whole becomes more disordered as result of the work done to make that order. You can create order out of a pile sheets with jumbled words on it into a sensible book, but you expend energy doing so.

            If you wanna hit up Information Theory next, read this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/12/148462664/information-theory-does-not-apply-to-the-evolution-of-the-biosphere Says that with no preconcieved uses for a random mutation before it occurs, you can’t apply information theory. We can only realise the value of a mutation after the fact.

            Evolution is not just about random mutations, it’s about the potential adaptation of those random mutations to better survive in a niche. A random mutation can either be beneficial, harmful, benign or both beneficial and harmful. If it’s beneficial, it increases the survival chances of an individual in order to pass on that mutation into the species at large. If it’s harmful, it will damage the chances of survival of the indvidual and also the damage the chances of any offsprings it might have so it eventually the mutation should die out.
            Simply put, whilst the mutations are themselves random, whether the mutation persists to propagate in the species is not random but dependent on its usefulness.

          • Sym Gardiner

            A simpler way of looking at thermodynamics is that you can’t gain energy in a system without some kind of input. In short, something plus nothing doesn’t become more than something.
            In fact energy tends to be lost out of systems. They all tend to devolve. In the case of a perpetual motion machine, it tends to spin down. I refer to this as devolve.
            The same seems to be the case with genetic diversity (which is a system). Mutations indeed happen. But they happen from a set of genetic code that is a closed set.
            Evolution, taken back to its beginnings as an explanation for “creation” has us believe that a bird evolved from a bacteria. A bacteria’s genes are far less complex than a bird’s. In short, we are being told that a gene set increased its complexity.
            There are two big problems with this. Firstly it seems contrary to this principle of everything spinning down. The second is that is not what we observe in gene sets in current species. Admittedly we are only looking at a short timeframe with our current ability to look at genes. But what we do see is genetic devolution (set reduction) rather than evolution.
            It seems odd to argue a theory as proven when we don’t see such evidence. Of course the argument is that if you add in enough time, anything is possible. This may be the case. But then you have to add in probabilities that really start making Lotto look like a secure retirement savings option. ;)
            Anyway… nice chatting.

          • TheContrarian

            Entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) applies to ‘closed systems’. The earth is not a closed system as it receives continuous energy from the sun. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does’t apply to evolution as evolution is not taking place in a closed system which isn’t being refreshed with energy.

            There are countless examples of genetic eveolution (not devolution). Nylonase is a good example as well as the research done by Richard Lenski.

          • TomTom

            Lol there has been enough time to see what has happened. The Earth has been dated through a variety of measures to be about 4 to 5 billion years old.

            If you were to fit the last 4 billion or so years into an hour, we humans have existed for point-one of a second! That’s one-tenth of a second! The first dinosaurs, millions of years ago in real time, only happened barely 3 minutes before!
            http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/time460.gif

            You’re clearly set in your views that is probably informed by some creationist websites without having actually properly read and studied evolution (you yourself admit to never actually having studied biology properly)

            Just in case you try to claim that I’m doing what I accused of you, rejecting a theory out of hand without considering it properly, I have considered it properly. The Earth isn’t 6000 years old, I don’t believe in a 2000 year old book, and I have yet to see any credible existence for a Creator.

          • Sym Gardiner

            ;)

  • Andrei

    Nothing like setting up a bunch of straw men then knocking them over for trying to look smart when you aint

    • Rodger T

      Of course, your invisible sky fairy makes so much more sense.If you are afraid of reality.

  • LesleyNZ

    Child Abuse? Well – Lawrence Krauss may think he knows almost everything but he doesn’t know what will happen to him after he dies. Eternity is forever. Wonder what he will be thinking on his deathbed? If he believes in evolution the he believes in survival of the fittest so what is he going on about? How can someone supposedly so intelligent believe that he happens to be on this earth by an accident of evolution. This man believes that nothing created something out of nothing whereas others believe that something created something out of nothing.

    • Rodger T

      Once again, what/who created your god?

      • Orange

        The law of causality applies, funnily enough, to things that have come to be. If something has always existed it doesn’t need an external cause. You may find it hard to believe, but scientists used to believe the universe had always existed. They did not then ask “but who created it” because that’s a really stupid question to ask if it has always existed. No theist claims that God ever came into existence but rather that God always existed, therefore to ask when god came into existence is just dumb.

        • James Stephenson

          Riiiight. It’s more likely that something more powerful and complex than we can possibly imagine, yet can find absolutely no evidence for, has always existed than it is that proven and demonstrated evolutionary processes brought us to where we are today.

          As the valley girl said: what-ev-er.

          • Orange

            I think you’re talking about something different from me. I was only referring to first causes. But then, I haven’t watched the video, I guess it was about evolution? I guess you must be Catholic cos their official line is macro evolution. As a note to what you said though, no theists believe God is complex so whatever you have in mind when you think of that word it must be something completely different from what pretty much anyone else believes.

          • James Stephenson

            No, I’m as Atheist as they come, and I’m using “complexity” in the usual scientific way. We are more complex than bacteria and any deity must be more complex still. Natural Selection is the only explanation on the table as to how to start at simple and arrive at complex.

          • Orange

            Don’t worry, I’ve met other atheists who were catholic too. But as I said before, theists hold that God is simple, not complex, so your view of God (or your view of how others understand God) does not correspond to reality.

  • TheContrarian

    Evolution is one of the soundest scientific principles man has ever come up with. It has stood it’s ground for 150 years.

48%