Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Thermodynamics yakanusha Evolution

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Elimu (Education Forum)' started by X-PASTER, Oct 29, 2008.

  1. X-PASTER

    X-PASTER Moderator

    #1
    Oct 29, 2008
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 75
    Trophy Points: 145
    Kanuni ya pili ya Thermodynamics yakanusha Evolution

    Evolution Deceit. com - This website is the interactive version of the book "Evolution Deceit" by HARUN YAHYA

    KANUNI (Law) ya pili ya Thermodynamics ambayo inatambulika kama moja ya kanuni za msingi za sayansi ya fizikia, inaeleza kuwa katika hali ya kawaida, mifumo yote ikiachwa (bila uangalizi) huwa na kawaida ya kuvurugika, kutawanyika na kuharibika katika uwiano sawa na kiwango cha muda kitakachopita.

    Vitu vyote, vyenye uhai na visivyo na uhai, huchakaa, hupungua, hupukutika na hatimaye huharibika na kuisha. Hii ndio khatma ya kila kitu. Na zaidi ya hivyo, kanuni hii inaeleza kuwa mweleko huu hauwezi kurudi nyuma.

    Mfano, ikiwa gari jipya kabisa litapelekwa likatelekezwa Jangwani kwa miaka kadhaa, basi itakuwa ni jambo la kustaajabisha iwapo mtu atarudi baada ya miaka kumi na kulikuta liko katika hali nzuri kuliko lilipoachwa. Hii ni kwa kuwa mategemeo ni kulikuta lishachakaa, limejaa kutu, matairi yashapasuka, springi nyingine zimefyatuka, rangi imekoboka, na kadhalika. Ama kwa viumbe hai, basi hali huwa mbaya zaidi. Kazi ya kuoza ni kubwa na mara moja huyo kiumbe hupotea.


    Kanuni hii ambayo pia hujulikana kama "kanuni ya Entropy" inaeleza kuwa ulimwengu wote unaelekea katika hali ya kuvurugika na kukosa mpangilio zaidi na zaidi kadri muda unavyopita.

    Ukweli wa kisayansi wa kanuni hii umeshathibitika na nadharia hii ni yenye kukubaliwa na ulimwengu wote wa kisayansi. Albert Eistein ameeleza kuwa ndiyo "kanuni kuu ya sayansi yote".

    Lakini hapa wa-Darwin wamekuwa kisiki cha mbanga kwani nadharia yao inakwenda kinyume na kupingana moja kwa moja na kanuni hii muhimu.

    Kama ilivyoelezwa huko nyuma, nadharia ya mnyumbuliko wa viumbe inaeleza kuwa chembe za maada (atoms na molecules) zisizokuwa na mpangilio wala mfumo, zenye kutawanyika na zisizo na uhai zikajipangilia, zikaungana na kuunda chembe kuu zenye miundo ya hali ya juu na ya kustaajabisha kama vile chembe za protini, DNA na RNA. Kisha hizi zikajipangilia zikaunda chembe hai (cells) na baada ya hapo zikaibua mifumo ya hali ya juu ya viumbe hai vya wingi wa aina kwa mamilioni.

    Navyo viumbe hivyo vikapangika katika mifumo ya maisha ya kustajaabisha yenye kuhusiana vizuri kabisa na mazingira yao na vyenyewe kwa vyenyewe. Kama vile nyasi kuwa chakula cha swala na swala chakula cha simba na simba chakula cha nyasi na kadhalika.

    Maana yake ni kuwa kutokana na hali ya mvurugiko unapatikana mpangilio, tena wa hali ya juu kiasi kisichokadirika kiakili. Hivi leo, wanasayansi wa dunia, pamoja na wanafikizia wa fani mbalimbali za kitaaluma wanahangaika kutafuta njia ay kuondoa tatizo la kuharibika mazingira ya dunia yanayotokana na maendeleo yaliyoyaleta na wanashindwa kabisa. Matokeo yake mazingira yanazidi kuharibika. Lakini wa-Darwin na wa-Maada wengine wanaamini kuwa mifumo mizuri ya mazingira tuliyoikuta imeibuka yenyewe tu.


    Lakini wa-Darwin wenyewe wanakiri kigingi hiki kinavyowakwaza. Wanasayanasi. Mwanamnyumbuliko, Roger Lewin anaeleza kama alivyonukuliwa na Dr. Harun Yahya katika Evolution Deceit: The Scientific Collapse of Darwinism and its Idiological Background, uk. 115. log to the website: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/

    "Tatizo moja linalowakabili wanabailojia ni ule mgongano unaoonekana baina ya "evolution" na kanuni ya pili ya thermodynamics. Mifumo inatakiwa ivurugike na kutoa mpangilio hafifu, sio mpangilio bora zaidi".

    Naye George Stravropoulos amenukuriwa na Harun Yahya akieleza: "Mpaka sasa imeshindikana kuielezea photosynthesis na mifumo yote ya uhai na kwa mnasaba wa thermodyanamics, pamoja na lugha zenye kukanganya kutumika".

    Baada ya kukwama huku, Wa-Darwin wamekosa njia. Lakini kwa U-Darwin si sayansi bali ni "dini", bado inang'ang'aniwa pamoja na kukanushwa na sayansi kwa mara nyingine tena. M-Darwin maarufu Jeremy Rifkrin anatangaza imani yake kwa lugha ya kifamaji kama ifuatavyo:

    "Kanuni ya Entropy inasema kuwa Evolution ina kunywa nishati yote inayopatikana kwa ajili ya uhai katika sayari hii. Dhana yetu ya Evolutilon ni kinyume kabisa cha hivyo. Tunaamini kuwa kinamna fulani Evolution kimiujiza inaunda ubora mkuu zaidi na mpangilio hapa duniani".


    Wanamnyumbuliko ni mabingwa wa kughushi:

    http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

    Wakiwa wanaelewa vyema kuwa nadharia yao haina mashiko kisayansi, wana nadharia hawa hawakuishia kufanya juhudi kutafuta ushahidi wa kisayansi. Bali pale wanapokwama basi huwa tayari kutumia mbinu yoyote ili mradi kuipa uhai nadharia yao, na walau kuughilibu umma.

    Kwa mfano, wananadharia hawa wana kawaida ya kutoa michoro ya uongo na ya kubuni ya viumbe vya kubuni wanavyodai kuwa eti viliishi zamani. Hawakukosa hata kughushi michoro na kuunda mafuu ya bandia katika majaribio yao ya kuuhadaa ulimwengu.

    Miongoni mwa wa mwanzo kabisa kukamatwa katika njama hizi ni mwanasayansi wa zama za mwishoni mwa karne ya 19, Ernest Haeckel. Bwana huyu alibuni nadharia ya uongo kuwa vichanga vya viumbe hai matumboni mwao hupitia hatua zile zile ambazo viumbe hao walipitia katika historia ya kunyumbulika kwao.

    Katika kuthibitisha nadharia yake hiyo, Bwana huyu alichora michoro ya uongo ya vichanga katika hatua mbalimbali ili kuonesha kitangulizi cha mimba (embryo) cha mwanadamu kwanza kilionesha hali ya samaki, kisha ujusi na hatimaye ubinadamu. Nadharia hii imeshathibitishwa kuwa ni upuuzi usio na maana. La kushangaza ni kuwa mpaka leo hii nadharia hii, ujulikanayo kama "Recapitulation" inafundishwa mashuleni hapa kwetu Tanzania.

    George Geylord Simpson, mwana mnyumbuliko maarufu anaeleza katika An Introduction to Biology kilichochapishwa New York, uk. 241:

    "Haeckel ameieleza visivyo kanuni husika ya "evolution". Imekwishathibitika bila shaka vichanga havipitii hatua za mnyumbuliko (za wazazi wao)".

    Lakini Hackel alithibitika kuwa alighushi michoro yake katika uhai wake. Katika utetezi wake ulionukuliwa na Francis Hitching katika The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York, 1982, uk. 204 alieleza kama ifuatavyo:

    "Baada ya kukiri kuwepo kwa "ghishi", ilibidi nijichukulie kuwa mwenye kuhiliki na kuangamia lau kama nisingekuwa na faraja ya kuwaona pamoja nami ndani ya kizimba wahalifu wenzangu, miongoni mwao wakiwemo wengi wa watafiti wenye kuaminika na wanabaiolojia wa kuheshimika. Mingi ya michoro yote katika vitabu bora kabisa vya bailojia, rejea na majarida vingestahili kutuhumiwa kwa ghishi kwa kiwango kile kile (ninachotuhumiwa), kwani yote hiyo si sahihi, na pia "imerekebishwa", imepindwa kwa makusudi na umeundwa (ili ilete sura zinazokidhi haja)."

    Mfano mwingine wa visa vya wa-Darwin kughushi data za kisayansi ni ule wa fuu lijulikanalo kama "Piltdown man". Hili lilikuwa si chochote bali ni taya la Orang-utan lililounganishwa kwa makusudi na fuvu la mtu. Ulimwengu wa sayansi uliliamini fuvu hili ukiamini ni fuvu la mtu wa kale aliyekaribiana na masokwe watu. Kwa miaka 40 wa-Darwn walijitapa juu ya mafanikio yao katika kuthibitisha mnyumbuliko wa watu kutoka masokwe mtu.

    Mgunduzi wa fuu hili alikuwa Dr. Charles Dawson mwaka 1912, si mbali sana na kipindi cha ghishi cha Haeckel, katika eneo la Piltdown huko Uingereza. Fuvu hili lilikuwa na mvuto mkubwa kwa wanasayansi. Jumla ya tafiti za shahada za udaktari (PhD) 500 zilifanywa juu ya fuvu hilo na maisha au kunyumbulika kwake zilifanywa katika vyuo vikuu mbalimbali duniani.

    Ni mwaka 1953 ndipo ghishi hii ilipogunduliwa na kutangazwa. Fuvu hili lilikuwa la kichwa cha mtu aliyekufa miaka elfu kidogo iliyopita na taya la Orang-utan aliyekufa hivi karibuni. Meno ya fuu hilo yalikuwa ya Orang-utan bali yalisuguliwa kwa chuma ili yaelekeane na meno ya mtu. Meno hayo yalipangwa katika taya kwa ustadi mkubwa nyufa zikazibwa. Pia utafiti uliofanywa juu ya zana mbalimbali za "kale" zilizo "kutwa" pamoja na fuu hlo ulionesha kuwa hazikuwa bali ni ghishi zilizochongwa leo.


    Baada ya ugunduzi huo, fuu hilo liliondolewa upesi upesi kutoka katika jumba la makumbusho la Uingereza(British Museum) lilimowekwa kwa miaka 40.

    Darwin na kashfa za ubaguzi wa rangi
    Katika kitabu chake The Descent of Man kilichochapishwa baada ya kile cha Origin of Species, Darwin anaeleza kuwa watu wa rangi tofauti wamo katika hatua tofauti za maendeleo ya viumbe. Na kwamba wazungu ndio walioendelea zaidi na bora zaidi, bali Waafrika na Aborigines wa Australia wao bado wako katika hatua za usokwe mtu.

    Darwin aliamini kuwa watu wa makabila haya ya nyuma kimabadiliko hatimaye watafutiliwa mbali na wale walio mbele zaidi. Darwin alisema:

    "Katika kipindi fulani kijacho, ambacho si mbali sana ukipimia kwa karne, makabila (races) ya kistaarabu bila shaka yoyote yatayafuta na kuchukua maeneo ya makabila ya kishenzi duniani kote... tofauti iliyopo baina ya watu walio bora zaidi, kama tunavyoweza kutaraji, zaidi hata kuliko nyani, badala ya ilivyo sasa katika Waafrika au a Australia na Magorilla."


    Tazama: Charles Darwin katika The Descent of Man, chapisho la 2, 1874, uk. 178.
     
  2. Mlalahoi

    Mlalahoi JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Oct 29, 2008
    Joined: Aug 31, 2006
    Messages: 1,916
    Likes Received: 157
    Trophy Points: 160
    E banaee nimesoma hii kitu,kufika katikati nimechemsha.Labda ujaribu kutumia graphics kuelezea.Somo muhimu lakini gumu kueleweka
     
  3. Kitia

    Kitia JF-Expert Member

    #3
    Oct 29, 2008
    Joined: Dec 2, 2006
    Messages: 409
    Likes Received: 3
    Trophy Points: 0
    Ukisoma kitabu 'The Key to the Colors'cha Dr. Kress, kinaelezea kuwa baada ya muda Wazungu watakwisha kwa kuwa wana genes ambazo ni recessive. Dr Kress anadai kuwa wazungu wanafahamu hiyo na hicho ndicho chanzo kikubwa cha kuwaogopa watu 'wa rangi' kwa vile genes zao sio recesive na uzao wao unaongezeka.
     
  4. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Oct 29, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Industry rule number 4080, hukanushi kitu kisichokuwapo , unaonyesha kitu kilichopo.

    Kisayansi huwezi absolutely kukanusha kuwepo kwa A, wala kuonyesha kutokuwepo kwa A, unaweza kuonyesha kuwepo kwa A au B.

    Ndiyo maana mpaka kesho watu wanazitest age old theories za kina Newton na Einstein, na hawawezi kukanusha kuwepo kwa string theory kisayansi.

    Halafu inaonekana uelewa wako wa evolution unaweza kusaidiwa zaidi kama ungeielewa process nzima ya random mutation, ungeelewa natural selection, halafu ungeelewa timescale zinazoongelewa.

    Eventually, in another 4-5 billion years the Sun will enter a "red giant" status and explode in a supernovae shortly thereafter.So the second law of thermodynamics will prevail, but that does not prove anything against evolution as it will have provide enough time for humans to have evolved.
     
  5. X-PASTER

    X-PASTER Moderator

    #5
    Oct 31, 2008
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 75
    Trophy Points: 145
    Many different theories have been posited to explain the universe's creation. Some people, who disregarded the scientific evidence about the beginnings of the universe, suggested that matter has always existed. One hypothesis put forward to support this view is the "Steady-state Hypothesis." Comprehensive and long research has revealed strong evidence that the universe has a beginning. The Steady-state hypothesis, on the other hand, has become a distant memory in the history of science.

    For More Reading, Click the link Below...!


    THE SUN COMPLETES ITS LIFE-CYCLE
     
  6. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Oct 31, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Yaani kuna watu bado wapo katika Steady State Theory mwaka huu?

    Unaelewa ana maana gani anaposema "The Steady-state hypothesis, on the other hand, has become a distant memory in the history of science." Unafahamu historia ya Steady State Theory na Fred Hoyle?

    Do you know the meaning of "Shooting yourself in the foot" ?
     
  7. X-PASTER

    X-PASTER Moderator

    #7
    Oct 31, 2008
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 11,651
    Likes Received: 75
    Trophy Points: 145
    One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

    ...The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occurÂ… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.


    For Reading, Click the link Below

    Mutation
     
  8. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Oct 31, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    the writer of the above piece gives the impression that he is absolutely not aware of the time factor in the whole process of evolution and mutation, it is as if he assumes evolution happens overnight, rather than the gradual process that takes billions of years that it is.

    It is true a single animal or plant would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate mutations and events. What he fail to understand, is that miracles need not become the rule, rather positive mutations can remain the exception that is building up over millennia and millenia, over billions of years, producing some magnificent organisms.

    So the assumption that miracles becomes rules in thousands of thousands of mutations" is falsely based on the supposition that it all happens at the same time or a short period of time, for most large scale organisms it is so slow the human lifespan is not enough to detect it.
     
  9. Ab-Titchaz

    Ab-Titchaz Content Manager Staff Member

    #9
    Nov 1, 2008
    Joined: Jan 30, 2008
    Messages: 14,702
    Likes Received: 15
    Trophy Points: 0
    Guys,

    je msha-apply the Fine Tuning Theory hapa?

     
  10. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Nov 1, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Ab,

    The Anthropic Principle is just stating the obvious, for some reason some take it to be unsientific.

    It is very good for what it states though, that whatever your question about the universe, the universe is going to be tuned to support you asking that question, otherwise you wouldn't be asking that question.

    The Astronomer General, Martin Rees has a very highly regarded book on this subject called "Just Six numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe". He talks about how just the six constants of nature, first N, the number is 1 followed by 36 zeroes, it is obtained by dividing the electrical forces holding atoms together divided by the forces of gravity between them.If N had just a few zeroes the universe would have existed only as a miniature short lived one.

    Then there is the James Bond number (Epsilon 0.007) this defines how firmly atomic nuclei are bound together.If esilon was 0.006 or 0.008 we could not exist.

    The cosmic number Omega measures the number of material in our universe, if this ratio was too high in relation to a particular critical number the universe would have collapsed long ago, if it was too low no galaxies or stars would have formed.

    Lambda, the fourth number was only successfully measured in 1998.This is a cosmic antigravity that controls the expansion of the universe and has no discernible effect on distances less than a billion light years, as the universe expands it will become more important than gravity.Lambda is very small, if it was just a bit larger its effect would have stopped the expansion of the universe and formation of galaxies and stars.

    Q is the fifth ratio is of two fundamental energies at the big bang, about 1/100,000.If Q were just a bit smaller the universe would be inert and structureless, if it were just a bit larger the universe would have been a most violent place with no stars or solar systems mostly dominated by vast black holes.

    The sixth number is D, the number of large scale spatial dimensions, without D being three life could not exist.If D was two or four life would not have evolved.

    So that is the most compelling short narration of the Fine Tuned Universe school of thought (Source first chapter of the book).This may make a compelling case for a creator, but I think even with this "circumstantial evidence" I am not convinced.

    Mr. Rees does not tell me for example, with alternative settings, lets take the dimensions one (number six above) life, or some other strange form of existence that I am not even sure I could call life, would have evolved and made the inhabitants question themselves what if their universe had evolved to be our universe, they would surely say "Thank God" (or whatever authority they believed in "our universe turned out this way and not that other way".There is a book called "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" by Edwin Abbot about life in a flat two dimensional universe. So maybe it is not so necessary to have 3D for existence.It is true maybe some of our chemical reactions need to happen in 3D, but how do we know that 2D does not have its own chemistry? Existence need not be Carbon based life, it need not be life at all, it could very well be some very strange fluctuations in the spacetime continuum.

    So the fine tuned universe is merely descriptive, and anybody trying to use it as proof of a god head is being very dogmatic at the very least.

    For all we know, our universe is a minusculy minute iota in the vast sea of multiverses, each one with it's own configuration

    Leonard Susskind, the Felix Bloch professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University has a very interesting book on this idea called "The Cosmic Landscape : String Theory and The Illusion of Intelligent Design" covers this topic in depth
     
  11. Ab-Titchaz

    Ab-Titchaz Content Manager Staff Member

    #11
    Nov 1, 2008
    Joined: Jan 30, 2008
    Messages: 14,702
    Likes Received: 15
    Trophy Points: 0
    Now that you have 'ainishaad' the nitty grity of fine tuning, how about
    those who postulate that the custodian of all this fine tuning is God?... I had a
    professor who insisted on this notion and he had his arguments.
     
  12. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Nov 1, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Ab,

    In the last point I expanded on the Anthropic Principle and said we can attribute intelligent design to the fine tuned universe if we think this universe is the only universe and there is nothing else.

    Otherwise, as pointed out in "The Cosmic Landscape" and the weak Anthropic Principle we are only seeing our universe as fine tuned because we exist in it, any universe we exist in would be fine tuned for our own existence, otherwise we would not exist.

    Nimejaribu kuelezea kwamba there is no reason why another universe should not exist where the geometry of default is non-Euclidean and there are 2 large spatial dimensions and no time, or two dimensions of time (back and forth) or any other weird kind of silicon based life instead of our own carbon based, or something that is similar to life but it is so strange we cannot even call life.

    The creatures in that universe too would think their universe is fine tuned for their existence, it is part Darwinian natural selection at play.All the creatures not suitable to live in this universe did not evolve fully and are extinct. We evolved therefore we see the universe as fine tuned.

    So the apparent fine tuned universe does not show any tendency towards creationism triumphing, to the contrary it shows evidence of a bigger landscape.
     
Loading...