Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

sinmantyx might disagree with you about such a tube's lack of utility.

Some people think giraffes have such long necks because female giraffes think long necks are sexy!

:)

If you are a physics undergrad - then I'll tell you what I tell MY physics undergrads that I teach.

Please explain to me how:

Q = W + H
where H does not equal zero
magically means that W is also zero.

As far as "changing meanings and definitions" - we aren't talking about the fact that we are still at war with Oceania (joke)!

Science DOES change with evidence. That is how it works. So pointing out that the definition of a word from 30 years ago is different than the modern usage is NOT a bad thing. The definition of "atom" and "gravity" has change significantly through the years, for example.

Yes, when "errors....are exposed" science changes.

Theres no need for you to be able to curl your tongue into a tube, yet some people can, some cant. One day when all food comes in tiny pots. . .

camaroontree -

As far as we can tell, the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. There is practically no such thing as a "closed system". Systems decrease in entropy ALL THE TIME. If this wasn't true, literally NOTHING would function at all.

If the 2nd law actually said what many creation scientists think it says, it would be changed due to evidence to the contrary. Get it?

The "laws" of physics are not immutable. They are based on evidence. They are parts of THEORIES.

Physics undergrad here, Thermo dynamics stays as a wonderfully scientific refutation against evolution. No arguments possible. Stop aruing alchemy with an appeal to ignorance.

It's my understanding that the reason "spontaneous generation" is not used to refer to chemical evolution is because the term "spontaneous generation" refers to an historically held theory that predicted that flies magically appear from rotting meat and dirty rags birth rats.

What I find ironic, is that many creation scientists ideas about how the world works are much more in-line with the concepts of spontaneous generation than most evolutionary biologist's ideas.

In the books I have seen, giraffes are simply used to illustrate basic concepts. Mounting a campaign against using that example seems really silly to me. It would be like mounting a campaign against Schrodinger's Cat or the closed-water-system analogy to Kirchhoff's Laws.

Please don't CHANGE the scientific meaning of "theory" and "fact" and "law".

Evolution is a *theory* - but theory does NOT mean that scientists pulled it out of their butts - just like cell theory, germ theory, gravitational theory, electro-magnetic theory, etc.

Heck, many of the *LAWS* that you learn in physics have been falsified by counter-examples. They just happen to be useful most of the time.