Better Scientist: Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin?

E = mc^2 + G =m1 m2/r^2 wrote:Yes, simple-minded and wrong.

The earth is not a closed system, energy comes in and can be used.

some random dude wrote:

The idea here is that according to the second "law" (quotes intended to emphasize my own distaste for claiming "laws" of nature) of thermodynamics, the universe is constantly moving toward ever greater disorder. By contrast, evolution implies the creation of order from disorder, supposedly in conflict with the aforementioned "law."

Fairly simple-minded argument, but a common one.

well I guess that settles it then. Internet poster dude who started a thread about Isaac Newton apparently for the purpose of calling attention to his alleged gayness has declared a law of science - which he admittedly knows nothing about - to be "wrong".

Glad we cleared that up. Now move along, nothing to see here..

kki wrote:The earth is not a closed system, energy comes in and can be used.

DWIGHT SCHRUTE wrote:Internet poster dude who started a thread about Isaac Newton ... has declared a law of science - which he admittedly knows nothing about - to be "wrong".

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It allows one to misapply principles and make claims that sound smart to the ignorant, but are just plain wrong. This is a good case in point. DWIGHT SHRUTE (nice handle, btw), you are absolutely wrong on this one. In defining any thermodynamic system, you must include all things that exchange energy. In this case, the order created through the evolution of life that occurs on Earth is minute compared to the amount of disorder associated with the energy liberated by our partner and source of energy, the Sun.

To the question at hand, though, I think Newton is definitely the better scientist. Along with universal gravitation, the Principia (laws of motion) and the Calculus, let's not forget his monumental work in optics and the invention of the reflecting telescope. Alchemy was a bust, though, that cast a pall on the end of his career.

Oh, I see. So the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics only applies in some situations, mainly those that conveniently do not contradict the THEORY of evolution?

I'm just glad LRC is here as such a valid source of scientific knowledge..

DWIGHT SCHRUTE wrote:

Oh, I see. So the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics only applies in some situations, mainly those that conveniently do not contradict the THEORY of evolution?

I'm just glad LRC is here as such a valid source of scientific knowledge..

Not sure if you are being serious or just trolling - your statements imply profound ignorance built atop a small reservoir of incorrectly interpreted knowledge.

Assuming that you are serious here is the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics for you:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy.

Please note the, 'if no energy enters or leaves the system' clause. The planet earth and the biological systems therein do not meet this criterion. Not very convenient for you argument, huh?

now now...let's close our 7th grade science textbooks, which pick and choose and brainwash.. I love how the monkey-man fans just declare the universe an open system, sort of like declaring yourself immune to gravity "just because".

This is as simple as I can find it stated - from allaboutscience.org:

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are considerable. The universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining. We logically conclude the universe is not eternal. The universe had a finite beginning -- the moment at which it was at "zero entropy" (its most ordered possible state). Like a wind-up clock, the universe is winding down, as if at one point it was fully wound up and has been winding down ever since. The question is who wound up the clock?

The theological implications are obvious. NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow commented on these implications when he said, "Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...

lucKY2b wrote:

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Particularly when it comes to quotations:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again.

Also, I have to agree that the DWIGHT SCHRUTE character was trolling. I think everyone with a fairly good grasp of the Second Law understands that pockets of order are possible within the overall march toward entropy (which is only a tendency, by the way, not a lockstep progression); and people with a little stronger grasp of physics and/or statistics understand that such "pockets" are *overwhelmingly* likely.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, here's one from left field:

Here’s an example of a NEW species--i.e. one that cannot “mate” with its forebears and produce fertile offspring--of "higher" organism that evolved IN REAL TIME (my grandma's lifetime):

“Sometime in the early 20th century, an accidental [= 'beneficial mutation'!] doubling [= new ‘information’!] of the number of chromosomes in an S.× baxteri plant led to the formation of a new fertile species, Welsh groundsel [Senecio cambrensis].”--Wiki

New fertile species are PRECISELY what "macroevolution" is.

Darwin wasn't as clever as John Harrison who invented the watch that allowed him and his peers to sail around the world visiting islands and observing birds and tortoises.

Until Harrison, ships could only fix latitude, not longitude. Tremendous invention that changed history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison

Newton and Leibniz invented calculus without the benefit of shorthand which adds to its impressiveness. But it didn't fix longitude.

Whiskers the Magic Kitty wrote:

Newton couldn't figure outa physics problem out so he was like "Screw it I'm going to make calculus"...All Darwin ever did was piss off a bunch of southerners and right wingers.

Newton helped find out the law of gravity,while Darwin helped to understand the theory of evolution i think i am support of both people.How about you?

Charles Darwin was a highly intelligent human being, but Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest genius the human race ever produced.

Isaac Newton is a genius among geniuses.

He made numerous original discoveries in mathematics and physics.

Individuals that make original discoveries in mathematics or physics are intellectually in a different league to anyone else.

E = mc^2 + G =m1 m2/r^2 wrote:

Better Scientist: Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin?

They were both awesome thinkers. Deducing that the distance between objects has much to do with gravity seems like the more difficult line of reasoning. There are more observations available in figuring out evolution. So I think Newton's feat is a bit better.

But then Newton was horribly misguided about the bible. He could not see what was behind it. Amazing for someone of his thinking ability!

1000 wrote:

Charles Darwin was a highly intelligent human being, but Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest genius the human race ever produced.

Isaac Newton is a genius among geniuses.

He made numerous original discoveries in mathematics and physics.

Individuals that make original discoveries in mathematics or physics are intellectually in a different league to anyone else.

Newton was a virgin. He was a failure as a human being.

David Rudisha.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The law of universal gravitation is so simple that you can make high school students figure it out for themselves.

The theory of evolution isn't that clever either. It doesn't take too many brains to know creatures inherit traits, and only a few more brains to figure out that the good traits survive and the bad traits die. It became famous because it was controversial, not brilliant.

“Every problem is absurdly simple when it is explained to you.” - Sherlock Holmes

draw photos of animals vs. invent modern physics

Newton, by a landslide if we're talking about influence and impact on humanity.

Among biologists, Darwin probably takes a back seat to no one but Pasteur.

Among the many great scientists, it is often said that Tesla may have been the most intelligent.

In terms of impact equivalent to that of Newton, can't overlook the super-geniuses Galileo and Aristotle.