Evolution FAQ

[DeathEatsaCracker]

From Talk.Origins. I went through and cherry-picked some of the Q & A's that are relevant to the "discussions" we've been having in this forum. The links take you to more specific FAQs.

<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Has Never Been Observed and 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ listing some more observed speciation events.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal characteristics. See the Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature FAQ.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Proceeds by Random Chance.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young.</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non-contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions are wrong?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of the Earth FAQ.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur footprints?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>The "man-tracks" of the Paluxy Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas were not man tracks at all. Some were eroded dinosaur tracks, and others were human carvings. See the The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy FAQ.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering.</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>And irrelevant. Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors. See the Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ, the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs, Quotations and Misquotations and Creationist Arguments: Misquotes</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>What about "intelligent design"?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>"Intelligent design" (<ACRONYM title="intelligent design">ID</ACRONYM>) advocates often use the very same arguments that the young-earth creationists have used in the past. The Archive does have some FAQs on Behe's "irreducible complexity", Jonathan Wells's "icons of evolution", and Dembski's "specified complexity" (see questions below). Further essays on "intelligent design" can be found on our sister site, <A href="http://www.talkdesign.org/" target=_blank rel=external><ABBR title="Talk Design">TalkDesign</ABBR> <SMALL>[off site]</SMALL>, and at <A href="http://www.talkreason.org/" target=_blank rel=external><ABBR title="Talk Reason">TalkReason</ABBR> <SMALL>[off site]</SMALL>. "The Quixotic Message," or "No Free Hunch" <SMALL>[off site]</SMALL> deals with ID claims in a humorous manner.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



<TABLE class="center noborder" cellPadding=10 width="80%" summary=""><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Doesn't irreducible complexity (as described in Behe's <CITE>Darwin's Black Box</CITE>) shown that some biomechanical systems could not evolve gradually, but must have all their parts created at once?</TD></TR><TR vAlign=center align=left><TH vAlign=top scope=row>

</TH><TD>Behe's "irreducible complexity" considers only an unrealistically simplistic model of evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms that Behe doesn't consider, such as functional change and coevolution, make irreducible complexity not only possible, but expected. See Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe FAQs and Irreducible Complexity Demystified <SMALL>[off site]</SMALL>.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[punter]

Very good Cracker but it aint going to do a damn bit of good.

When some peoples mind is made up its made of stone. Thats why they are such blockheads.

 

[festeringZit]

I went to http://www.trueorigin.org and cherry-picked some
points to counter the dogma from the Darwinists.

he TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins). This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website. Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data. This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.
The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:
<table align="center" bgcolor="#d9e7ff" cellpadding="12"><tbody><tr><td> <table><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]1. [/FONT]</td><td>The myth that the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution belief system—as heavily popularized by today’s self-appointed “science experts,” the popular media, academia, and certain government agencies—finds “overwhelming” or even merely unequivocal support in the data of empirical science</td> </tr> <tr valign="top"><td style="padding-top: 12px;">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]2. [/FONT]</td><td style="padding-top: 12px;">The myth that the alternative—biblical creation—somehow fails to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data</td> </tr> </tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody></table> The question of origins is plainly a matter of science history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while heaping out-of-hand dismissal and derision upon all doubters, spurning the very advice of Darwin himself.
This site is one answer to such unreasonable—and unscientific—practices...





<table width="630" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="middle" bgcolor="#cccccc" height="60">[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=+2]“Talk.Origins Archive” Rebuttals[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="middle" width="50" align="center" bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]

TOP[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> </tr></tbody></table>

• Helium Evidence for a Young Earth (Russ Humphreys)—rebuts Kevin Henke’s sloppy, unaccountable criticisms of the peer-reviewed RATE findings.
• Helium Evidence for A Young World Overcomes Pressure (Russ Humphreys)—rebuts the second edition of Kevin Henke’s sloppy, unaccountable criticisms of the peer-reviewed RATE findings.
• 29 ‘Evidences’ for Macroevolution (Ashby Camp)—a thorough critique of Douglas Theobald’s TalkOrigins essay citing a series of alleged ‘predictions’ for evolution.
• Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution (T. Wallace)—a response to a nearly fact-free TalkOrigins essay of a similar title by Mark Isaak.
• Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism (T. Wallace)—a response to Frank Steiger’s TalkOrigins essays feigning immunity for evolutionism from thermodynamic absolutes.
• Problems with a Global Flood? (Jonathan Sarfati)—a rebuttal of Mark Isaak’s use of half-baked exegesis and presuppositional bigotry to “discredit the flood hypothesis”.
• A Scientific Critique of Evolution (Lee Spetner)—a response to Dr. Edward Max’s TalkOrigins criticisms of the position articulated in Spetner’s book, Not By Chance.
• A Continuation of Spetner v. Max (Lee Spetner)—response and commentary by Spetner on Ed Max’s additional counter-claims and criticisms at TalkOrigins.
• The Moon is Still Young (Malcolm Bowden’s)—rebuttal of Tim Thompson’s attempted dismissal of young age arguments involving the earth-moon system.
• <!-- New -->A Theory of Creation (T. Wallace)—answering the vacuous (but popular, at TalkOrigins) claim that no empirically relevant creationary theory exists.
• Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission (Jorge Fernandez)—documents how Talk.Origins avoids significant details through conspicuous omission and oversimplification.

<table width="600" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr><td valign="middle">When was the TrueOrigin Archive website started and why?</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]A:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="top">The site began in November 1997 with a single rebuttal (“Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions About Evolution”), after a well-meaning relative suggested that a few TalkOrigins articles (including Mark Isaak’s “Five Misconceptions”) would clear up Tim’s “erroneous” thinking on the subject. The rebuttal was originally written to demonstrate (for that relative) the application of critical thinking skills and a measure of objectivity in the analysis of evolutionary dogma. It was then “published” as a web page in hopes of reaching a few other readers. (The relative only responded with silence.)
<hr></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table width="600" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Q:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="middle">Why not just contribute to TalkOrigins instead of creating a whole new site?</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]A:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="top">In spite of the TalkOrigins publishers’ pretense to be “exploring” the creation/evolution controversy (as if their “exploration” were characteristically balanced and objective), even a cursory examination of the TalkOrigins content reveals that the site is heavily biased in favor of the evolutionary belief system. There was—and is—no evidence that material from a creationary perspective would meet with anything but the same out-of-hand rejection and/or the customary dismissive derision already poured out on the creationary viewpoint among TalkOrigins regulars. (This probably explains why there are no positive articles regarding creation science there, even though TalkOrigins was establish long before TrueOrigin.)
<hr></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table width="600" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Q:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="middle">Why won’t you just admit that creationism is religion and evolution is science?</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]A:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="top">Because it’s not true. Here’s why...

First, let’s use consistent terminology. “Creation ism” and “evolution ism” comprise a pair of opposing worldviews based on different ideologies. Evolutionism is based upon the foundation that only naturalistic and materialistic causes exist for not just life here on earth but the entire cosmos from the point of origin until now. Creationism is based upon the foundation that our world and the cosmos itself testifies to an active Creator, still involved with His creation. The words “creation” and “evolution”, on the other hand, represent the proposed processes by which things have come into existence, each in accordance with its respective worldview. It is an error in logic to describe the origins debate in terms of one side’s worldview versus the other side’s process. Second, let’s not pretend that one’s worldview or philosophical belief system does not constitute one’s “religion”—no matter how little or how much it has to do with the supernatural in general or the Bible in particular. Regardless of any scientific corroboration, what many (if not most) of evolution’s proponents practice is the promotion of one worldview or philosophical belief system (i.e., religion) over and against another. Rarely content to discuss empirical science alone, they regularly advocate humanistic naturalism as a superior worldview or philosophical belief system to biblical creationism. It is therefore an act of self-deception to think that they are defending/advocating a position that is somehow “not religious” and/or strictly “scientific”.
Third, notwithstanding widespread popular ignorance (some of it apparently willful), a growing body of empirical science points out serious flaws in contemporary evolutionary thinking, while affirming the biblical creationary model. This hardly renders evolution “science” and creation “not science”. On the contrary, the scientific viability of evolution has been brought into question in recent years by an ever increasing number of highly qualified scientific professionals, not all of whom have been biblical creationists.
So perhaps a better question would be: Why won’t evolutionists admit that their ideological, philosophical, and—yes—religious belief system has much at stake in the question of evolution’s scientific credibility, rather than falsely insisting that the debate is strictly between ‘science’ and ‘religion’?

<hr></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table width="600" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Q:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="middle">Aren’t you being biased by favoring only one side?</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]A:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="top">Yes! The important thing is that there is no pretense here that anything other than that is taking place. There are plenty of places on the web where the evolutionary model is articulated and staunchly defended. No one is demanding that they give “equal time” to a contrary position, and they have no obligation to do so. The same is true here: This website was established expressly for the purpose of giving voice to the creationary perspective—not under a contrived pretext of “exploring” the debate, but to expose the faulty logic and false assumptions that comprise much of the popularly embraced evolutionary belief system, and to set forth a representative sampling from the abundance of empirical evidence interpretations supporting the creationary model.
<hr></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table width="600" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Q:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="middle">What exactly are you trying to prove?</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]A:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="top">First, we are NOT trying to prove God exists.</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right"> </td> <td valign="top">We ARE trying to do exactly what is stated at the outset on this site’s “home” page — which is to demonstrate that the NeoDarwinian Macroevolution belief system does not find “overwhelming” unequivocal support in the data of empirical science, and that the biblical creation model in fact finds compelling, corroborative support in the same data available to and used by evolutionists.
<hr></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table width="600" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2"><tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Q:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="middle">Why does the TrueOrigin website only feature links to like-minded websites, when the TalkOrigins website has both evolutionary and creationary links?</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="50" align="right">[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=+3]A:[/SIZE][/FONT]</td> <td valign="top">Featuring links to creationary sites renders the TalkOrigins website no more balanced or objective than does it’s pretense to be “exploring” the creation/evolution controversy. Both elements give the false appearance of balance and objectivity, whereas the TalkOrigins site delivers only blatantly pro-evolution and anti-creation content. Moreover, while the evolutionary perspective is abundantly documented and easily found on the internet, the selection of links featured at the TrueOrigin site is intended to be consistent with the site’s plainly stated purpose (i.e., to give expression to the “other side”), which is in no way disguised from readers.

</td></tr></tbody></table>http://www.trueorigin.org/​

 

[festeringZit]

Very good Cracker but it aint going to do a damn bit of good.

When some peoples mind is made up its made of stone. Thats why they are such blockheads.

Wow, another brilliant point. Such argumentation - simply brilliant.

 

[bblight]

DEAC tries to convince us that the theory of evolution is 2+2=4.

2+2=4 is fact, while evolution is hypothetical theory.

Many of us consider evolution to be a plausible piece of Genesis.

DEAC can't seem to accept the point that others might feel fine believing in another religion.

 

[kingbill]

DEAC tries to convince us that the theory of evolution is 2+2=4.

2+2=4 is fact, while evolution is hypothetical theory.

Many of us consider evolution to be a plausible piece of Genesis.

DEAC can't seem to accept the point that others might feel fine believing in another religion.

Thanks to Mr. Wizard we know that 2+2=4 is not always fact...

If you add 2 litres of water and 2 litres of alcohol in doesn't equal 4 litres

:toast:

 

[bblight]

Thanks to Mr. Wizard we know that 2+2=4 is not always fact...

If you add 2 litres of water and 2 litres of alcohol in doesn't equal 4 litres
:toast:

2 Litres + two litres will always = 4 litres - liter is volume.

2L h2o + 2L al might not = 4 Kg - but will always = 4L

 

[kingbill]

2 Litres + two litres will always = 4 litres - liter is volume.

2L h2o + 2L al might not = 4 Kg - but will always = 4L

Can I get a ruling on this?

 

[tiznow]

correct BB and it won't be 4 kg

density of ethanol is .789 g/ml vs. water which is 1 g/ml

 

[bblight]

correct BB and it won't be 4 kg

density of ethanol is .789 g/ml vs. water which is 1 g/ml

I love the metric system - it makes so much sense.

 

[JoeContrarian]

correct BB and it won't be 4 kg

density of ethanol is .789 g/ml vs. water which is 1 g/ml

Does this sort of expertise come in handy when predicting the movement of markets and the rise and fall of civilizations?

:nohead:

 

[tiznow]

now if you went and took 2 liters of hydrochloric acid and 2 liters of bleach and mixed together you wouldn't get 4 liters cause it reacts to produce chlorine gas

LOL

--------------

chemical engineering got boring joe....i go through phases...i'll get outta my economic/political kick eventually and move onto something else

life short don't want to spend my whole life involved in one subject

 

[kingbill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k206qaVRU

 

[tiznow]

y KB i'm a little foggy slow these days forgot about the ethanol/water molecule interaction having an effect on the volume my bad

 

[bblight]

Any reactions would be due to chemical changes - it's no longer 2L of water and Alcohol or 2L of Bleach and Hydrochloric - but something else altogether such as Chlorine gas.

 

[tiznow]

the 2L of water and ethanol aren't reacting the molecules just interact and line up in a way so the volume as a whole shrinks

volume isn't conserved...mass is

any two liquids that mix well typically causes a volume change of some type

if they are immisible (can't mix) than volume stays the same

 

[wolfie_cr]

2 Litres + two litres will always = 4 litres - liter is volume.

2L h2o + 2L al might not = 4 Kg - but will always = 4L

you are wrong

I knew that those lessons in Chemical Engineering would pay off someday LOL

Ethanol and water are an interesting mix and react (or more correctly interact, even though in Chem Eng you can see 'physical reaction' such as in a phase change) in very interesting ways even more so that other mixtures. Lookup azeotropic mixture for example.

 

[wolfie_cr]

Does this sort of expertise come in handy when predicting the movement of markets and the rise and fall of civilizations?

:nohead:

knowledge never hurts, it shows for instance that what sounds 'logical' is not even remotely true, that is, 2L of X + 2L of Y = 4L of X+Y >>> wrong