This guy reckons he has debunked Evolution

I reckon he is full of shite, but my math is not up to a refutation.

Any takers? Post here so I can debate him!

He lost me when he attacked any scientists who disagreed with his conclusions. I stopped watching the video when he stated that intelligent life occurred only on this planet.

One does not construct a lucid and rational argument by resorting to attacks on others or making claims that cannot be supported.

1 Like

Yes, he does claim at one point to have a mathematical proof…which I am sure he is spouting from his arse…but my math is fingers and toes variety…

So is mine, maybe a bit of trigonometry thrown in. But this asshat has laid out a pre-prepared argument that any scientist who opposes his argument is full of shit. That is not science, or even a respectful presentation of a proposition, it is just “I’m right and you are wrong”.

In truth, I’d just laugh at the bloke and move on.

Willing to bet the claimant has almost certainly not only not read any Darwin, but does not have the most basic understanding of evolution or the meaning of the term ‘scientific theory’

Evolution is not only accepted science,it has also been demonstrated to be true, recently.(see below)


One of Darwin’s evolution theories finally proved


March 17, 2020


St John’s College, University of Cambridge


Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution for the first time – nearly 140 years after his death. Researchers discovered mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought. Her research could now be used to predict which species conservationists should focus on protecting-----

Moment of Truth (MOT) is a creationist group.

Reading from the transcript, I was shrugging all the way through the references to ‘desperate evolutionists’, assurances that scientists as a group were stupid, a Bible quote, a redefinition of the second law in which entropy is not relevant because the ‘Universe can be a closed system’.

Then I came across the reference to Granville Sewell, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas, El Paso…and a staunch advocate of creationism and closely associated with the Discovery Institute.
Sewell rejects ‘Darwinism’, apparently because its at odds with his own ‘state of the art software program’. Sewell is quoted in the article, “Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.” Shades of Michael Behe and Alfred Russell Wallace!

After Sewell, I didn’t have to read any further, but I did, and the complicated big pseudo-scientific statistical-sounding word soup continued with the usual mangling and distortion of the scientific method common to all creationist arguments, until all understanding was lost and we reached the assurances toward the end that praying to God would help us understand the logic riot MOT had presented, which in itself was a fitting demonstration for about the power of entropy…within a closed mind system, to boot.

The YouTube link was a waste of time…I want my money back, Old Man!!..and some of my afternoon!

Thanks for humoring me. I have been replying to this idiot with selected verses from the Book of Calli, yourself and of course, the Great Book of Fallacies by Sheldon but the bastard had me at the math.

The maths!?! The bastard!!..have you asked him yet for any objective evidence for the existence of his creator god…fuck the maths and its proofs…where’s the evidence?
Keep the money, OM, seems you’ve earned it with your determined correspondence with them.

His opening gambit was that he had “mathematical proof” that evolution was false because of Second Law of Thermodynamics. I argued pointing out that that was indeed, bollocks. But he maintained his lie despite my asking for his calculations.

Wanted them to publish here to get Nyar and Callis’ refutations. So I can shove them up his MOT arse with a stuffed cockatoo…

include a stuffed echidna and I’ll help you with the shoving…

Can someone give a time stamp to the math part? :laughing:

I have asked, repeatedly for his calculations so I thought I would try and preempt him.

Already he is full of shit. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics…
“It is not wrong to say that “in a closed system, entropy increases,” however we must provide the caveat that the universe is an open system .” (The 2nd law DOES NOT APPLY).

Specified Arrangement / Purpose - NO There is no evidence for “purpose.” This is where he sneaks in the “God of the Gaps.” There need be no purpose at all for arrangements of atomic structures. NONE>

Time breaks down at Planck Time. We have no idea at all what “time” could possibly do, outside or our local perceptions. Our model of time was created during the expansion of the universe.

Experiment shows that arrow of time is a relative concept, not an absolute one


ETMs… Not even necessary — The Earth is not a closed system. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system.

Randomness degrades DNA - An unfounded value judgement. Randomness changes DNA. Changes that are beneficial to the survival of a species are kept and those that are not… waste away. I read someplace that 100 years ago you were 20% more likely to be born with a vestigial tail. Human traits that emerged recently include the ability to free-dive for long periods of time, adaptations for living in high altitudes where oxygen concentrations are low, resistance to contagious diseases (such as malaria), fair skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence (or the ability to digest milk after weaning), lower …

I’m Bored with the video… far as I go.

As usual all global news networks and the entire scientific world, as well as every major religion, and of course the Nobel committee, seem unaware of this paradigm shifting discovery…

I don’t think we need Sherlock Holmes to unravel this one for us, another barking mad creatard with delusions of grandeur…

Is it Breezy by any chance, I keep waiting to hear he’s finally published a paper outlining his objections, and can’t understand why he hasn’t debunked the scientific fact of species evolution, he seemed so convinced of his own genius as well.

Pushing this a little further down the road…

The creationist mathematician I referred to, Edward Sewell, has published various articles making claims that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, which is largely where Moment of Truth gets his YouTube material.

In reply to Sewell, Jason Rosenhouse, a Professor of Mathematics at James Madison University, Virginia and who used to author EvolutionBlog up to 2016, responded with with one article in The Mathematical Intellgencer, “How Anti-evolutionists Abuse Mathematics” (which is actually a free pdf), which is profoundly statistical and only made me bleed from the ears and another article in the Skeptical Inquirer, “Does Evolution Have a Thermodynamic Problem?” which was more an explanation in English…and really worth the time to read.

For what its worth.

Let’s nail the fatuous “second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution” bullshit once and for all, shall we? This will be a multi part post. Welcome to Part 1.

Searching through my saved archive of past posts where I dealt with the creationist canards on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I see that I have no less than twenty-two posts over at RDF, that I have archived covering this topic, which is an indication of how often this tiresome nonsense is parroted repeatedly by propagandists for mythology-based masturbation fantasies. Let’s combine them into one, complete, distilled rebuttal, shall we?

Actually, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does apply to living creatures. All that is required, however, for living creatures to function, is that they obtain an energy supply sufficient for them to press into useful service in their metabolic processes. Basically, if living organisms are net recipients of energy from some outside source, they can use that energy to grow, maintain their bodies and reproduce.

The stupidity you’ve been reading arises from the fact that creationists in particular have a totally fuckwitted understanding of what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually says. Moreover, when Rudolf Clausius formulated the 2LT in the 19th century, he was careful to be specific about the nature of thermodynamic systems, and classified them into three groups:

[1] Isolated systems are systems that engage in no exchange of matter or energy with their surroundings. Such systems are therefore reliant upon the internal energy that they already possess. However, isolated systems constitute an idealisation that is almost never achieved in practice, and are mostly useful as a starting point for developing thermodynamic theory prior to extending it to the other classes of system.

[2] Closed systems are systems that engage in exchange of energy with the surroundings, but no exchange of matter. A good example of a closed system would be a solar panel, which does not exchange matter with its surroundings, but which, when illuminated, is a net recipient of energy in the form of visible light, which it then converts to electricity, which we can use.

[3] Open systems are systems that engage in exchange of both energy and matter with the surroundings. Living organisms plainly fall into this latter category.

When Rudolf Clausius erected his original statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he stated it thus:

The trouble with the 2LT is that it applies to all of these systems, but the exact manner in which it applies differs between the three classes of system. Clausius’ original statement about the application of the 2LT to an isolated system does not apply to the other classes of system in anything like the same manner. Trouble is, creationists alight upon the statement about entropy increasing, which was originally erected by Clausius to describe isolated systems, and think that the formulation Clausius erected to apply to isolated systems applies to all systems in the same manner, when Clausius himself plainly stated that it doesn’t.

In a non isolated system, if there is an energy input, that energy input can be harnessed to perform useful work, such as locally decreasing the entropy of entities within the system in exchange for a greater increase in entropy beyond those systems. As long as there exists inhomogeneity within the universe, i.e., there exist regions of differing conditions with respect to material content, energy flux, etc., any net recipient of energy from an outside energy source can harness that energy to perform useful work, including work that results in a temporary local decrease of entropy. The Earth constitutes such a system, because it is engaging in both matter and energy transfer with the surroundings, and is in fact a large net recipient of energy from the surroundings. See that yellow thing in the sky? It’s called The Sun. It’s a vast nuclear fusion reactor 866,000 miles across that is irradiating the Earth with massive amounts of energy as I type this. Energy that can be harnessed to perform useful work such as constructing living organisms.

Incidentally, as a tangential diversion, the classical formulation has again required revision to take account of more recent developments with respect to observed phenomena, which is why we now have a scientific discipline called Quantum Thermodynamics … a discipline that was contributed to by, among others, Stephen Hawking, when he published his landmark paper on the radiative nature of black holes that brings them into equilibrium with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I don’t recall him ruling out evolution as a result of this.

Another common fallacy is the wholly non-rigorous association of entropy with “disorder”, however this is defined. This has been known to be non-rigorous by physicists for decades, because there exist numerous documented instances of systems whose entropy increases when they spontaneously self-assemble into ordered structures as a result of the effect of electrostatic forces. Lipid bilayers are an important example of this, which are found throughout the biosphere.

The following scientific paper is apposite here:

Gentle Force Of Entropy Bridges Disciplines by David Kestenbaum, Science, 279: 1849 (20th March 1998)

Phospholipids being an excellent example thereof. In fact, any chemical system in which there exists the capacity for electrostatic forces to apply to either aggregating or reacting molecules can exhibit this phenomenon. Which is why scientists have long since abandoned the notion that “entropy” equals “disorder”, which requires a thorough statistical mechanical treatment in terms of microstates in any case.

This is applied to the physics and physical chemistry of lipid bilayers in the following paper:

Electrostatic Repulsion Of Positively Charged Vesicles And Negatively Charged Objects by
Helim Aranda-Espinoza, Yi Chen, Nily Dan, T. C. Lubensky, Philip Nelson, Laurence Ramos and D. A. Weitz, Science, 285: 394-397 (16th July 1999)

in which the authors calculated that the entropy of the lipid bilayer system increased when it arranged itself spontaneously into an ordered structure in accordance with the laws of electrostatics.

Part 2 follows shortly.

1 Like

Welcome to Part 2.

Entropy, as rigorously defined, has units of Joules per Kelvin, and is therefore a function of energy versus thermodynamic temperature. The simple fact of the matter is that if the thermodynamic temperature increases, then the total entropy of a given system decreases if no additional energy was input into the system in order to provide the increase in thermodynamic temperature. Star formation is an excellent example of this, because the thermodynamic temperature at the core of a gas cloud increases as the cloud coalesces under gravity. All that is required to increase the core temperature to the point where nuclear fusion is initiated is sufficient mass. No external energy is added to the system. Consequently, the entropy at the core decreases due to the influence of gravity driving up the thermodynamic temperature. Yet the highly compressed gas in the core is hardly “ordered”.

More to the point, there are scientific papers in existence establishing that evolution is perfectly consistent with the 2LT. Two important papers being:

Entropy And Evolution by Daniel F. Styer, American Journal of Physics, 78(11): 1031-1033 (November 2008) DOI: 10.1119/1.2973046

Natural Selection As A Physical Principle by Alfred J. Lotka, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 8: 151-154 (1922) [full paper downloadable from here]

Evolution Of Biological Complexity by Christoph Adami, Charles Ofria and Travis C. Collier, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(9): 4463-4468 (25th April 2000) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Order From Disorder: The Thermodynamics Of Complexity In Biology by Eric D. Schneider and James J. Kay, in Michael P. Murphy, Luke A.J. O’Neill (ed), What is Life: The Next Fifty Years. Reflections on the Future of Biology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 161-172 [Full paper downloadable from here]

Natural Selection For Least Action by Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part A, 464: 3055-3070 (22nd july 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Evolution And The Second Law Of Thermodynamics by Emory F. Bunn,, 0903.4603v1 (26th March 2009) [Download full paper from here]

Let’s take a look at some of these, shall we?

First of all, we have this:

So, even as far back as 1922, scientists were arguing that evolution is not in violation of the Second law of Thermodynamics. Interesting revelation, yes?

Lotka continues with this:

Now this, as I’ve just stated, was written as far back as 1922, which means that scientists have been aware that thermodynamic laws and evolution are not in conflict for eighty-seven years.

Part 3 follows shortly.

1 Like

Welcome to Part 3.

Moving on, let’s look at the more recent papers. Let’s look first at the abstract of the Adami et al paper:

Oh look. A point I’ve been arguing for a long time here, namely that a rigorous definition of complexity is needed in order to be able to make precise categorical statements about complexity. I also note with interest that the authors of this paper perform detailed experiments via simulation in order to establish the fact that complexity can arise from simple systems (the behaviour of the Verhust Equation I’ve mentioned here frequently establishes this, and indeed, the investigation of such systems as the Verhulst Equation and similar dynamical systems is now the subject of its own branch of applied mathematics).

The authors open their paper thus:

Moving on, the authors directly address a favourite canard of creationists (though they do not state explicitly that they are doing this), namely that information somehow constitutes a “non-physical” entity. Here’s what the authors have to say on this subject:

Nice. In brief, the authors clearly state that information requires a physical substrate to reside upon, and a mechanism for the residence of that information upon the requisite physical substrate, in such a manner that said information constitutes a mapping from the arrangement of the physical substrate upon which it resides, to whatever other physical system is being represented by that mapping. I remember one creationist claiming that because the mass of a floppy disc doesn’t change when one writes data to it, this somehow “proves” that information is not a physical entity: apparently said creationist didn’t pay attention in the requisite basic physics classes, or else he would have learned that the information stored on a floppy disc is stored by materially altering the physical state of the medium, courtesy of inducing changes in the magnetic orientation of the ferric oxide particles in the disc medium. In other words, a physical process was required to generate that information and store it on the disc. I am indebted to the above authors for casting this basic principle in the appropriate (and succinct) general form.

Part 4 follows shortly.

1 Like

This the clown’s reply: [

" I gave you some sample calculations, but you have disregarded them. [No he fucking didn’t] You got one thing right, the scientific community is “happy” with evolution being a fact. That is called the loss of objectivity.

Which specific point in the video do you think you have countered? Did you pay attention to my points about arrangements, arrow of time, entropy definition, constraints, defining the system, and entropy transfer mechanisms? I saw no indication of it."

He’s a died in the wool creatard muppet. Even I understood your points…I don’t think he can read. Others on the site are enjoying it though. He fancies himself as a “authority” and had the youtube channel to prove it.

Do creatards think evolution occurrs in an isolated system?

Can they not see the sun, or feel its heat?