Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Showcase Article

Small Storage Packs from Charon

When you only need to carry 72 28mm figures (or less)...


Featured Workbench Article

Basing With FlexSteel

What's this FlexSteel we're always talking about?


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


47,746 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP25 Feb 2009 1:30 p.m. PST

OK, a few points, Evolution is a fact, how evolution happens is the theory of evolution which includes the fact of evolution.

The theory can be testet based on predictions it makes.

One prediction Darwin made was that all life is ralated and have a commn ancester.
This was later proven with Genetrics as all life share DNA, we all come from the same place.

Another prediction Darwin made was that we would discover "trasistional" fossils, this to we have done, infact we have so many fossils we havn't named them all yet.
We have fossils from fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to birds and mammals ect.

Another predicion was the humans and the other great apes share a recent common ancestor, this to was proven with genetics

And you just keep repteating creationist propaganda.

And here's a video that explanes it much better then I can do
link

crhkrebs25 Feb 2009 5:00 p.m. PST

Hmmmmm……popcorn…..munch….munch…..munch…………..Hey!…What's this?:

What is the theoretical natural process or processes to form the only left handed sugars that life uses naturally? You know – that stuff that holds your DNA together – the ribose?

I'm not on speaking terms with Trevor any more.

Maybe someone could explain to him that since all natural DNA and RNA contain only the levo-ribose and levo-deoxy ribose sugars, this suggests a single common precursor molecule that all others derived from. In other words the fact that all the sugars are "left-handed" points towards evolution.

Someone may explain that to him……I doubt he cares.

(returns to the popcorn)……….munch……..munch

crhkrebs26 Feb 2009 5:02 a.m. PST

Gunfreak,

Excellent and entertaining series of videos. Thanks for that.

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP26 Feb 2009 9:15 a.m. PST

Yes, that series is one of my favorites,

Other good ones are

Made easy series,
link

And this is my favorite, a real no hold back series
Why do people laugh at creationists?
link

Ghecko26 Feb 2009 3:18 p.m. PST

OK. You said: "Contrary to your statement, Darwin's theory of evolution could be falsified very easily by one observation which doesn't fit."

Surely you jest… This has been done but evolution is so rubbery a concept that evolutionists can stretch it to cover just about anything.

Consider: the Biblical model is that the creation started in a state of perfection and later was cursed. One prediction one could make from that is that everything would no longer be perfect; it would wear down; break down; decay; die. This prediction is certainly supported by the Laws of Thermodynamics; that's what every process observed in the universe does. Evolution on the other hand has to describe an as yet unknown property of inanimate matter that allows it to self-organise into a living reproducing organism in opposition to this law, a law which has never been broken, never proven wrong.

Yes, I readily admit that I am a biased creationist – I wonder if you will ever admit likewise – that you are a biased evolutionist… and why? The thing is – I was once a biased evolutionist; I then opened my mind up to other possibilities and weighed the evidence on both sides, something that evolutionists rarely bother to do.

Now skipping over your rambling display of semantics… I'm not asking you, nor ever have asked you, to "prove evolution from the ground up". What I am asking you is to show me just one small tiny little bit of a nebulous theory – how abiogenesis occurred.

I said: "True. Creation is also a theory for explaining an observation. So, what is the motive behind people insisting that creation is not a valid theory for a given observation? Is it or is it not? If not, then why not? Is there some scientific reason why it is not or is it just personal prejudice against what is at its core – God – and all that implies?"

You said: "Because NONE of the evidence supports the theory."

None? That is a rather dogmatic statement isn't it? If there was no evidence whatsoever for creationism to stand on, it would have died off long ago.

Quote: "We have SOME testability, you have none, but insist we prove ALL to your."

When on earth did I ever say this? If you read carefully, and didn't go off half cocked, you should have noticed that you are the one proclaiming evolutionary theory – are you not? It's up to you to support it. When I proclaim biblical theory – it's up to me to support it and it's up to you to debunk it. Savvy?

I asked: "What is the theoretical natural process or processes to form the only left handed sugars that life uses naturally? You know – that stuff that holds your DNA together – the ribose? Etc, Etc."

Your reply was somewhat disappointing: "Well, again, you have created something. I would direct you to your nearest packed of "Splenda" for an example of those biochemists understanding the process you suggest enough to produce a right handed sugar!"

You do know that sugars come in two forms don't you? When produced naturally, sugars randomly form what is termed a racemate mixture – about 50% "right handed" and about 50% "left handed" molecules. Trouble is… life depends exclusively 100% on left handed variety; this gives the DNA its spiral shape; stick a right hander in there and it just doesn't work; it falls to bits. Interesting though – you have supported my theory that it takes lots of intelligent chemists and lots of expensive equipment and research to come up with a way to make 100% "right handed" sugar mixture… something that doesn't happen naturally.

I said: "Oh dear. You know, I've had a pretty good look around and I am yet to see an automobile "evolve" naturally. I have observed many designed and built by lots of intelligent people (that's good science at work) but I am yet to see one just pop up via natural processes…"

To which you said: "Clever but off point". How? It's your example – how is it "off point"?

You said: "You insist that evolution fails because it isn't demonstrated that we go from atoms to rabbits on a Wednesday".

Pure nonsense yet again; I have never said that either – just abiogenesis – molecules to a single living reproducing cell. That would do for a start. Anyway, this statement supports the fact that abiogenesis is only a theory for you have admitted that it hasn't yet been demonstrated.

You said: "I am pointing out that by your criteria, cars don't exist because I cannot repeat their "evolution" in an afternoon." What absolute nonsense. OK; I ask:

Can a single cell evolve to become a man in one day? No; impossible you say.
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a hundred years? No; impossible you say.
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a thousand years? No; impossible you say.
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a million years? No; impossible you say
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in ten million years? No; extremely unlikely you say.
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a hundred million years? No; well… maybe you say.
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a billion years? Yes you say.

Can you see what happened there? You go from impossible to definitely by just waving the magic wand of time. It's special pleading in its purest form – plain and simple. What was it that Darwin recognised in the preface to "The Origin of Species"?

"Anyone who does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time may at once close this volume."

Consider the reasons behind why, even back then, he concluded "no time = no evolution".

Then, you said: "And after your reasoning, you indicate that while I have to prove every step from dirt in the ground to driving to Vegas, you don't have to demonstrate anything."

No – just abiogenesis – molecules to a single living reproducing cell. That would do for a start.

You said: "You allot no time to the proof and say "see". But your criteria is false. You baldly assert that you need only do a negative. But deny me that I have SOME proof, you have NONE for ID, therefore, ID is definitely not true by your criteria."

Did I not offer for your consideration the immune system and blood clotting system? It appears that you have opted to avoid discussion on these examples, just two of many such examples of irreducibly complex systems that exist within your very own body.

I said: "What came first – the immune system or the need for an immune system?" Your reply: "Another false syllogism." Again – false? In what way?

I said: "Another interesting system you may wish to consider is the "blood clotting cascade" of your blood. It consists of a dozen interconnected processes involving dozens of compounds that must all work correctly and in sequence each and every time – otherwise you will bleed to death or your whole circulatory system will clot up. How does something like this evolve – naturally?"

You said: "Over a great deal of time…" Oops; there's our magic wand again – an example of special pleading.

You said: "A new species is a new species. You insist that this isn't enough? OK."

I said: "Again, bacteria mutating into bacteria mutating into endless bacteria isn't evolution at work; all you end up with is lots of species of bacteria. That's natural selection at work."

You said: "However, natural selection is a basic point in evolution. It was the FIRST thing attacked by your side who insisted that natural selection was anti-god. Why? Well, god made every animal and man perfectly to fit his slot, and natural selection suggested otherwise."

What??? When have I ever said that natural selection doesn't occur? It seems to me that I always have to point out how evolutionists always use the terms "natural selection" and "evolution" interchangeably not realising that they are not the same. You are aware that natural selection thins out an ever decreasing gene pool aren't you? The only way for evolution to progress onward and upward is to make new genes by mutation, is it not? That's why I said: "Evolution needs change – demands change – and big changes at that!"

To which you said: "No, it doesn't… [Eh? Evolution doesn't require change?]. But big changes require BIG time…[make up your mind]" Anyway, just the magic wand again – time will fix it!

I said: "Bacteria mutating into a multi-celled organisms mutating into an invertebrates, etc, etc, right up to man; now that IS the classical picture of evolution presented in books, on TV, in the classroom, etc, etc, and that's the sort of change you need to be able to demonstrate to support your theory."

Your reply: "… Mutating over BIG time. You keep leaving out the time part." Mmm… the magic wand again.

I said: "But how do we test it? How do we falsify it? Evolution as a theory is un-testable and un-falsifiable. It therefore is not a scientific theory at all. It is a belief system no different to any other religion"

You said: "A belief system with provable results. Every time a crime is solved with DNA, a relationship proved with DNA you have a minor support for the theory. As opposed to WHAT for ID?"

No need to shout. "A belief system with provable results": Should I conclude from this statement that you have conceded that evolution is a belief system? Yes, forensics are good science at work; but its here and its now and its testable and its provable. But have you ever bothered to ask yourself: How did that DNA originate in the first place? You only plead "by chance and by…… time". That answers nothing.

Evolutionists always avoid the questions of abiogenesis. Scientists who have studied the problem know how virtually impossible it is. (Example: Why develop the theory of Panspermia?) You are reduced to waving the old magic wand and pleading "given enough time the impossible becomes possible". Even Darwin recognised the problem and avoided it.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP27 Feb 2009 8:52 a.m. PST

IF YOU LOOK AT THE DAMN VIDEOES I'VE POSTED YOU WILL GET MOST IF NOT ALL YOUR ANSWERS, The made easy series is now avalble on dvd and for schools, they explane life and everthing very easy, from chemical evolution, to origen of life and DNA.

And quite frankliy, when creationist goes from trying to disprove evolution to "prove" creation it just gets imbaresing.

And againt you come to tired old creationst propaganda, like law of thermodynamics, which has been disproven many many many times.

If your brain can't comprehand times scales bigger then 6000 years, thats your problem

RockyRusso27 Feb 2009 12:10 p.m. PST

Hi

Sorry guy, you cannot call time a big magic wand while promoting ID which really is "big magic".

Your insistence on Abiogenesis is similar to my saying "demonstrate 'let there be light'". You are supporting a vision that is clearly not true as an equal theory to one that has repeatedly been varified.

i find it curious that after 200 years, the ID side now insists it accepts the bits that were the FIRST things it objected to at the time. The usual form of argument is that you lead with your first argument. When darwin wrote, the FIRST objection was to the natural selection. Now you accept it.

Your side is the one of slippery jelly, everytime you get countered, you change the criteria for "proving".

Notice, for example, your long "left handed" and I produced an instant right handed understanding. Your counter, "well it took dozens of scientists…" which in the first place is a bald assertian. Second, it is special pleading, your "lots" would only be apt if I was asserting that man invented life or evolution or even sugar. YOUR side basks in the glory of god, an entity that created everything and understands it to its final form. And then you demand that understanding the processes used by that creation must, somehow, have man prove and recreate that primary creation.

Lets examine a detail. I do aerodynamic math in the real world for the USAF. I don't understand fractal math.

Your version of the tale is god talking to some stone age shepard with no number in his vocabulary for any number bigger than a thousand, then we MUST accept in total, with no evidence that this shepard got the tale right.

Assuming it ever happened. There is no evidence for the decription in any creation myth. but you want my side to "simply" prove that first spark in detail to your satisfaction when you don't have the education either to understand the "billions and billions" part.

Rocky

crhkrebs27 Feb 2009 9:25 p.m. PST

……..the Laws of Thermodynamics; that's what every process observed in the universe does. Evolution on the other hand has to describe an as yet unknown property of inanimate matter that allows it to self-organise into a living reproducing organism in opposition to this law, a law which has never been broken, never proven wrong.

Out of all the stupid things I could have chosen, written in Trevor's last entry, I picked this one. In two sentences Trevor has shown that he slept through his high school Physics class AND his high school Biology class. It is an embarrassment.

crhkrebs27 Feb 2009 9:32 p.m. PST

Here are some quotes from the Judge's summation of the Dover School Board trial for everyone's entertainment:

"ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer." "This argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley" (the teleological argument) "The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God."

"The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments."

"Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data."

"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies"

For the full 139 page transcript see:

PDF link

You can start at pg. 64, "Whether ID is Science"

Ulenspiegel02 Mar 2009 5:13 a.m. PST

@crhkrebs

Thanks for the link, I am very impressed with the arguments the judge brings in his decision, some scientist look pale in comparison when they have to discuss the foundations of their trade.

Ulenspiegel

crhkrebs02 Mar 2009 11:25 a.m. PST

I am very impressed with the arguments the judge brings…….

Yes, and for his efforts Judge Jones got death threats for him and his family, forcing him to move away. Judge Jones, by the way, is a religious man, a Christian, and he was very disturbed to find that his tormentors were also "good" Christian folk. How do we know that? Because all the death threats came with Chapter and Verse Biblical quotations.

He was also publicly lambasted by such "good Christians" as Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson also warned that a disaster of Biblical proportions was going to befall the denizens of Dover County for "turning their backs on God" due to Judge Jones' decision.

This has nothing to do with the arguments at hand, but is interesting and quite telling in of itself.

Ralph

Ghecko02 Mar 2009 7:14 p.m. PST

Sigh. Ignoring your rather predictable and childlike clap trap Gunfreak… You said: "And again you come to tired old creationist propaganda, like law of thermodynamics, which has been disproven many, many times."

It's quite obvious you have never studied thermodynamics or you wouldn't have made such a goose of yourself by saying this. Meanwhile "Einstein", show us all an example of where the Second Law has been "disproven". I'm sure there are thousands of scientists out there who would be only too happy to know; they have been searching for well over century now and not a single example in any field of scientific endeavour has ever been found. So, we're waiting. (I suppose we'll get the old crystal thing… or maybe the fridge…)

Moving on:

Quote: "I find it curious that after 200 years, the ID side now insists it accepts the bits that were the FIRST things it objected to at the time. The usual form of argument is that you lead with your first argument. When Darwin wrote, the FIRST objection was to the natural selection. Now you accept it."

Oh, for pity sake. If only you bothered to stop and read what I'm saying instead of constantly putting words in my mouth… just so you don't misunderstand me yet again, what I've said several times now was this – natural selection, as a process, occurs. All informed creationists know this; all informed scientists know this. However, what evolutionists choose to ignore is the fact that natural selection as a process weeds out, thins out a PRE-EXISTING gene pool. Evolution requires mutations to make new or alter those genes for natural selection to work on does it not? That's where creationists and evolutionists begin to differ. I am asking you directly – Do you understand this?

Quote; "Your side is the one of slippery jelly, every time you get countered, you change the criteria for "proving"."

My "side" again… OK. Let's get back to where we started. What scientific "evidence" (so that you don't "misunderstand" me yet again note: "evidence" not "proof") is there of evolutionary abiogenesis? Well? Still waiting…

You have a degree I presume because say that you do aerodynamic maths for the USAF (sounds intriguing) and that you don't understand fractal math (neither do I, but I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and a degree in electrical engineering). Obviously then, you are intelligent enough to put your skills to work and search out the nature of the evidence for evolutionary abiogenesis. I can only speculate why you don't bother. If what I say can be shown to be wrong, it would shut me up well and truly… wouldn't it? But alas… we wait.

On the judge's summation of the Dover School Board trial: I remember reading parts of this at the time and the first thing I wondered was this: Put yourself in the judges' position. If you, as a "Christian" judge, came out and said something like "I like ID; ID is good; let's put it in our school and university curriculums" – how long would you last as a judge? I reckon about 10 minutes before all the evolutionists, atheists, civil libertarians, etc, start squawking and carrying on about "separation of church and state" or "biased judge" or whatever…endless appeals… death threats. He's probably got a mortgage like you and I; don't rock the boat; get to retirement; let someone else sort it out; stick with the status quo; safe; minimum controversy.

OK; now let's look at some of it: Read carefully: "…is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. … The designer is not falsifiable, since its existence is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. The designer being beyond the realm of the observable, claims about its existence can be neither supported nor undermined by observation, making intelligent design and the argument from design analytic a posteriori arguments. …Intelligent design professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. …By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, intelligent design cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway."

Did you note something very subtle all the way through there? "…allow a falsifying observation…", "…realm of the observable…", "…nor undermined by observation…", "…cannot be accounted for scientifically…" Go back and read it in context. Comes back to one of our previous discussions doesn't it?

So, I ask yet again: Can it be shown that science is the ONLY way to know something about anything, including "God"? Well? He uses an a priori assumption (that science is the only way to know about anything) to censure ID for using… an a priori assumption (but, he has to keep his job doesn't he?)

Clearly, intelligent design infers that there is a "god" behind it, just as evolutionary theory clearly infers that there is no "god" behind it. Do we ever see evolutionists make that statement in their discussions? Will you – or do you wish to keep your atheist premises hidden? I wonder if you will ever have the balls to say "Yes, I am an atheist and proud of it!"… Go on; I know you can do it… Personally, I wish they would stop beating about the bush and just say the "designer" is God.

Quote: "Thus intelligent design is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data."

"…there is simply no possibility of future correction…" What? None? Is he suggesting that examples of ID can never be disproven? If so, then his conclusion is simply inaccurate. It's obvious that examples of ID could be. But, of course, that line of reasoning again leads back to something we've talked about before: How exactly do you disprove "evolution"? How?

The thing is, once you reach a boundary in your knowledge where there appears no known scientific or theoretical way around it, then there is no valid reason why one cannot proclaim "ID" at that point (for example, abiogenesis – still waiting on the evidence).

However, if you are honest, the suggestion of ID "lets the divine foot in the door". But evolutionists can't have that… no matter what… can they? Not even the suggestion thereof…

Schools only teach evolution – correct? Now, if creation and ID are as stupid and wrong as they (and you) proclaim, then why are they so afraid to let students see that? You know – show them how creation and ID are stupid and wrong and then show them how true and correct evolution is. So simple – and that's a good informed learning process as well. Or is their aim to teach students what to think – not how to think? Are you a "thinker" or just one of the "sheep" taking things for granted?

Aldous Huxley once said: "Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted". Paraphrasing what I have found: "Most evolutionists have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted" (for example, that evolutionary abiogenesis occurred).

I believe you are one of those non-thinking "sheep". To believe the Dover decision is the be all and end all of the creation/evolution issue just shows how sparingly you think about the subject.

Ulenspiegel03 Mar 2009 12:50 a.m. PST

@tyraymond

In contrast to you, the judge as non-scientist has clearly understood the problem and was able to draw fact based conclusions. You could rally improve your education by reading the stuff.

Issue: ID is not science

Solution: Therefore it should not be taught as science.
I have as scientist no problem if you teach ID outside the scientific part of the curriculum. However, I hate it when Philistines like you try to replace science with nonsense like ID without the basic understanding what science is.

Another issue is that you basically define the existence and greatness of your god by lack of ability of scientists to explain certain parts of nature. With each gap that is filled in future, your god becomes less relevant. Other Christians have understood this problem for long time and have made peace with science.


Ulenspiegel

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP03 Mar 2009 6:28 a.m. PST

I never said the 2nd law of thermodynamics were false, I said the creationist missunderstanding of the law don't aply to evolution

Just saying 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution is as stupid as it gets, and shows complete lack of understanding

crhkrebs03 Mar 2009 7:43 a.m. PST

If you, as a "Christian" judge, came out and said something like "I like ID; ID is good; let's put it in our school and university curriculums" – how long would you last as a judge?

Brilliant reasoning. I suppose any judge would trade expediency for death threats and having to move his family. The judge, as a non-scientist, based his decision on the merits of the arguments presented by the expert witness's on either side of the case. And that is how his summation reads. It is telling that most of the scientists for the defense dropped out before the trial began. They, unlike Dr. Behe, knew ahead of time that their viewpoints would not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

……I do have a degree in mechanical engineering and a degree in electrical engineering…..

Isn't instruction in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics required for an Engineering degree at your school? Don't pick on Gunfreak when you say such blatant nonsense as:

……..the Laws of Thermodynamics; that's what every process observed in the universe does. Evolution on the other hand has to describe an as yet unknown property of inanimate matter that allows it to self-organise into a living reproducing organism in opposition to this law, a law which has never been broken, never proven wrong.

and then you say:

Oh, for pity sake. If only you bothered to stop and read what I'm saying instead of constantly putting words in my mouth…

Again, there is the pot calling the kettle black.

Schools only teach evolution – correct? Now, if creation and ID are as stupid and wrong as they (and you) proclaim, then why are they so afraid to let students see that? You know – show them how creation and ID are stupid and wrong and then show them how true and correct evolution is. So simple – and that's a good informed learning process as well. Or is their aim to teach students what to think – not how to think? Are you a "thinker" or just one of the "sheep" taking things for granted?

Schools can teach anything they like as long as science is taught in science class. Surely, as an engineer, you will be satisfied with that! Otherwise should Astrology be given the same credence as Astronomy? Should the "Flat Earth" hypothesis be taught in Geography? Should be Phrenology and Iridology be taught in Anatomy class? I don't mind Creationism and Intelligent Design to be taught in school at all. But keep it in Religion class, where it belongs. I don't understand how this gives students the ability to think as opposed to dictating to them.

Clearly, intelligent design infers that there is a "god" behind it, just as evolutionary theory clearly infers that there is no "god" behind it.

Another example of poor reasoning, or what Rocky like to call a "false syllogism". It is the Theory of Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION. The "theory" is an adjective describing natural selection, not evolution. The fact that living things evolve is an observable fact, easily seen if you study biology and paleobiology. There is no inference that there is no God, don't put one there to flesh out an otherwise weak argument.

Personally, I wish they would stop beating about the bush and just say the "designer" is God.

That was a specific tactic developed at the Discovery Institute to change "Creation Science" into the more palatable "Intelligent Design". The literature directly alluding to all this is readily available as "The Wedge". Look it up.

You conjure up an Aldous Huxley quote, which I think applies to you as much as any of us. I wonder on what side of this argument his grandfather, Thomas Huxley, or his brothers, Julian and Andrew would come down on? (Actually, that was a rhetoric question, they were all staunch evolutionists!)

My "side" again… OK. Let's get back to where we started. What scientific "evidence" (so that you don't "misunderstand" me yet again note: "evidence" not "proof") is there of evolutionary abiogenesis? Well? Still waiting…

Gawd….. the broken record is skipping again. There is no such thing as "evolutionary abiogenesis". The creation of life (whether divinely inspired or through abiogenesis) is not equivalent to the observable evidence of evolution, any more that the numeral 6 is equivalent to the numeral 9. Evolution exists and is observable regardless of how life got started. Darwin and Wallace simple described the mechanism by which evolution works. This has been explained to you multiple times. Sorry you don't understand this.

Also while we are demanding proof: remember when you stated, authoritatively, that articles in TalkOrigen were misleading, out of date, and some just plain wrong? I challenged you to present us with some examples of wrong ones. This is easy to do, Trevor, just go to the site and clip and paste the incorrect entries onto this thread for us all to see. You have chosen not to do so. Where you mistaken or deliberately misleading when issuing this statement?

Ralph

Ghecko13 Mar 2009 4:12 p.m. PST

I wasn't going to bother with this thread any more, but I must admit that I really found it puzzling why someone who is obviously as intelligent as you has to ask me what's wrong with Talk Origins? Ok, perhaps it's not immediately obvious. Hopefully this reply might help you understand what I'm talking about with respect to Thermodynamics, abiogenesis and evolution in general. Please be patient and work your way through.

Classical Thermodynamics concerns itself with the relationship between heat and energy and the conversion of either of these into the other. Correct? All physical, chemical and biological processes known to man are subject, without exception, to the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Correct? Let's make sure. (Now some relevant quote mining):

"[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability, therefore, the deep impression which Classical Thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown."

[Albert Einstein quoted in MJ Klein, "Thermodynamics in Einstein's Universe", and in Science 157 (1967), p509 and in Isaac Asimov's "Book of Science and Nature Quotations", p76]

"If your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation."

[Arthur S Eddington, Thermodynamicist "The Nature of the Physical World" (1930), p74]

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy."

[GN Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamicist "Thermodynamics" (1961), p87]

"…there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics…"

[Dr J Ross, Harvard Thermodynamicist, "Chemical and Engineering News" Vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p40]

Ok, seems clear. Regarding the First Law, scientist and passionate evolutionist Isaac Asimov offered this observation:

"This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalisation about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. No one knows why energy is conserved… All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful measurement scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation, either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us, or in the heavens above or in the atoms within."

[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institution Journal, 1970, p6]

Ok, seems clear. Now, the Second Law goes on to tell us what can and what cannot take place in terms of the relationships and transformations between matter, energy and work, as well as those of information and complexity. Correct? Let's check. Asimov again:

"Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work… or, the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."

"Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or [and note >] (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system."

"Another way of stating the Second Law then is: "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!" Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the Second Law is all about."

[Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p6, emphasis added]

Now, despite the howls of protest, evolutionary theory does in fact face a major problem with the Second Law as we will see.

The Second Law is clear; it indicates (as do all empirical observations) that things tend toward disorder, simplicity, randomness, disorganization, break down – call it what you may. The problem is that according to evolutionary theory, precisely the opposite thing has been/is taking place since the universe began. Starting at the "Big Bang", the evolutionary scenario demands that everything from stars to galaxies to planets to people right down to every atom, molecule and sub-particle, came about as the result of some loosely-defined, spontaneous process of self-assembly that somehow increases organisation and complexity. Now, that appears to be a direct contradiction of the Second Law does it not?

This self-organising hypothesis is maintained with great zeal by evolutionists, especially when it comes to evolutionary speculations concerning abiogenesis and biological life. The standard argument used by evolutionists in defending abiogenesis against the Second Law dilemma is along the lines that "…the Second Law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system." The rationale is that life on Earth is an "exception" to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because we exist in an "open" system – "…the Sun provides more than enough energy to drive things along." This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the Second Law. Correct? But is this correct? Let's check.

"…there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the Second Law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems… there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the Second Law of Thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."

[Dr. J Ross, Evolutionist and Harvard thermodynamicist, Chemical and Engineering News, Vol 58, July 7, 1980, p40]

Ok; it seems that simply adding energy to a system doesn't automatically decrease entropy. In fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorganization, etc, on Earth (e.g. consider the effects on paint fading; the effects on your skin like sunburn; etc; both with and then without the addition of solar radiation). So, how does life exist despite the Second Law?

Ok; let's take a look at life. All living things have two things present. First, every living organism has DNA; an organism's DNA contains all of the "information" needed to direct the process of building (or "organising") an organism from its germ cell (or seed) right through to a fully functional, adult specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organised and integrated component systems. Correct?

Second, living organisms also have their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the Sun's basic energy into usable, storable forms, while animals use their metabolism to convert, use and store usable energy from their food. Correct?

Living things only seem to "violate" the Second Law because they have both the built-in controlling "program" (information in the DNA) and the built-in energy conversion mechanisms (photosynthesis or metabolism). These allow living things to build up and maintain their physical structures, thus giving them the means to oppose the Second Law's effects (which ultimately prevail in death anyway). Agree?

So, it begs the question: Could life begin spontaneously in the absence of such a program and any energy conversion mechanisms? Good question.

Ok, let's see what they have to say about Thermodynamics and abiogenesis over on the Talk Origins. Referring to Frank Steiger's essay "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability" and various other bits and pieces on the Talk Origins site:

Firstly, Steiger regurgitates all the usual evolutionist's answers to these problems. But while the answers he presents may initially appear convincing to a willing believer of evolution, a proper examination will show that they are nothing more than the same old inadequate double-speak regularly served up by evolutionists as an answer to the Second Law objections. Firstly, not far into his essay, Steiger attributes to creationists:

"…a wide-spread and totally false belief that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. …In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."

Firstly, consider the nature of the "order" found in a snowflake or in a crystal. Has it anything to do with increased information, organisation, complexity or available energy (i.e. reduced entropy)? The formation of atoms or molecules into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects a movement towards thermodynamic equilibrium (at the lower energy level). Correct? They have a more stable, simple, uniform, repetitive structure with minimal complexity, but most importantly, they have no function. Correct? These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organised or more complex structures or systems having function are they?

Steiger clearly fails to recognise the profound difference between these examples of low-energy crystalline structures and the high-energy growth processes of living organisms with a program and energy conversion mechanisms (seeds sprouting, eggs into chicks). His equating of these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of Thermodynamics (as well as biology) on his part. Evolutionist Jeffrey Wicken has no problem recognising the difference:

"…"Organised" systems are to be carefully distinguished from "ordered" systems. Neither kind of system is "random," but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organised systems must be assembled element by element according to an external "wiring diagram" with a high information content … Organisation, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic "order."…"

[Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion", Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

Nobel Prize winner (for his work in Thermodynamics I'll add) Ilya Prigogine:

"The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."

[I Prigogine, G Nicolis and A Babloyants, Physics Today Vol 25(11):23 (1972)]

So, it appears that Steiger claims to know something about Thermodynamics that even a Nobel Prize winner in Thermodynamics was unaware of… Regardless, Steiger's blurring of the distinction between these two very different phenomena and equating them can only be attributed to either ignorance on his part or the willful misrepresentation of the facts. Steiger goes on to say:

"The application of energy can reverse a spontaneous, thermodynamically "irreversible" reaction. Leaves will spontaneously burn (combine with oxygen) to form water and carbon dioxide. The Sun's energy, through the process of photosynthesis, will produce leaves from water vapour and carbon dioxide, and form oxygen."

I mean to say, is Steiger serious? It seems to have escaped his attention that the process of photosynthesis does not function separate from the complex cellular apparatus of leaves; photosynthesis does not "produce" leaves; it is an intrinsic function of them! Correct? To suggest that photosynthesis as some non-biological, independent "leaf producing" process is to misrepresent it entirely. Any time now – yep – the "fridge"…

"If we unplug a refrigerator, heat will flow to the interior from the surroundings; the entropy increase inside the refrigerator will be greater than the entropy decrease in the surroundings, and the net entropy change is positive. If we plug it in, this spontaneous "irreversible" change is reversed. Due to the input of electrical energy to the compressor, the heat transferred to the surroundings from the condenser coils is greater than the heat extracted from the refrigerator, and the entropy increase of the surroundings is greater than the entropy decrease of the interior, in spite of the fact that the surroundings are at a higher temperature. Here again, the net entropy change is positive, as would be expected for any spontaneous process."

While serving as an excellent model of thermodynamics at work, Steiger's "fridge" example does much, much more – what it does do is to demonstrate the need for an energy conversion mechanism (the fridge) before a deliberate, sustained decrease in entropy is possible. Correct? (Incidentally, the starting and stopping of the fridge's compressor can hardly be described as "spontaneous"; it is a planned, willful and deliberate act of an intelligent agent done with a view of accomplishing a specific task.) Steiger would be remiss if he didn't trot out another example popular with evolutionists – and yep – the "water wheel/pump system"…

"If a water wheel is connected by shafts, belts, pulleys, etc. to a pump, the pump can raise water from the downstream side of the water wheel to an elevation even higher than that of the upstream reservoir. Some of the water would spontaneously raise itself to an elevation even higher than original, but the rest of it would end up below the water wheel on the downstream side. While it is not possible for all of the water to raise itself to an elevation higher than its initial elevation, it is possible for some of the water to spontaneously raise itself to an elevation higher than initial."

Once again, we are looking at a carefully designed system for creating and sustaining an apparent decrease in entropy. Correct? These examples beg the question:

Why must Steiger only rely on man-made mechanisms to illustrate his claim that "spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time"… requiring no design, no program nor any storage or conversion of energy?

Steiger again:

"In fact, spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time, providing sufficient energy is available. The fact that the water wheel and pump are man-built contraptions has no bearing on the case: thermodynamics does not concern itself with the detailed description of a system; it deals only with the relationship between initial and final states of a given system (in this case, the water wheel and pump)."


Eh? He's got balls I'll say that. Here, Steiger is quite casually excusing himself from facing a most profound fact with respect to Thermodynamics: spontaneous, sustained decreases in entropy do not occur in nature without the presence of (1) a program (e.g. DNA) and (2) a means of storing and/or converting energy (e.g. photosynthesis, metabolism). To declare that this "has no bearing on the case" only highlights his appalling ignorance (or deception), for if he was correct, things such as fridges, water wheels, pumps, etc, would require no design at all, appear spontaneously, and would function satisfactorily with no energy storage or conversion devices such as the belts and pulleys! Correct? Elsewhere on site, Steiger says:

"There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved… Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of Thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of Thermodynamics."

What! First we are told that no energy conversion mechanism needs to be accounted for. Then he infers that the changes in and the relationships between heat and work within biological processes are somehow "outside the scope of Thermodynamics"! … and not only that, to disagree with Steiger is to "distort and pervert the true nature of Thermodynamics"!

Staggering! I ask: Since when do the changes in and relationships between heat and work within a biological process (e.g. photosynthesis and metabolism) fall "outside the scope" of Thermodynamics? Under what branch of scientific analysis are these thermodynamic processes to be studied if not… Thermodynamics? By what natural laws are they governed if not by those of Thermodynamics? His statement is pure nonsense; pure fantasy; no… pure self deception.

It begs the question: Who is distorting and perverting the truth about the nature of Thermodynamics here?

At least creationists recognise the universal application of thermodynamic principles to all processes involving heat, work and the relationships between the two, both theoretical and in every day real world process in which they are found. Some more relevant quote mining – evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:

"We have repeatedly emphasised the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life's complex organisation. We have seen that organisation requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organisation. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed."

[GG Simpson and WS Beck, "Life: An Introduction to Biology". Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, 1965, p465]

"The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that … biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible Thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in Biology."

[CJ Smith, Biosystems, Vol 1:259 (1975)]

"Closely related to the apparent "paradox" of ongoing uphill processes in non-living systems is the apparent "paradox" of spontaneous self-organisation in nature. It is one thing for an internally organised, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organisation come about in the first place? Indeed the so-called "dissipative structures" that produce uphill processes are highly organised (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they assembled. Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one."

[JW Patterson, "Scientists Confront Creationism", LR Godfrey, Ed., WW Norton & Company, New York, 1983, p110]

Do you understand what they are saying? If so, then go read the rest of Steiger's "material" on-site yourself and also the FAQ's on Thermodynamics or abiogenesis. See what they say… and more importantly, with all this in mind, what they omit.

Steiger's essays, like so much of the so-called "information" on Talk Origins, when investigated in detail, contains deliberate deceptions, omissions, uninformed statements or just plain "feel good" rantings and ravings; in Steiger's case – all of the above. He denies the applicability of Thermodynamics to heat and work relationships within biological processes; he ignores the applicability of informational entropy to the biological processes and properties of all living organisms; he ignores the challenges posed to abiogenesis and evolution in general by the realities of Thermodynamics; and so on. Such misleading and dishonest tactics are typical amongst hard-core, God hating, creationist hating evolutionists.

I guess you are faced with a simple choice of accepting the universal applicability of the Laws of Thermodynamics and what that means to abiogenesis and to evolutionary theory in general, or, you can continue to naively believe that the likes of Steiger and his Talk Origins buddies actually know what they're talking about. Please yourselves.

A Chinese proverb: "One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not ask a question remains a fool forever…"

Ghecko13 Mar 2009 4:18 p.m. PST

A further example of what I'm talking about on Talk Origins: Refer to "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution" by a Mark Isaak: Section – "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics." I quote:

"…Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The Sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order.

However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

First: Note… the Sun is all we require. Standard reply; correct? No program required; no energy conversion systems required. Standard reply; correct? Next, and this is a good one:

"However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in non-living systems, too. …"

What's was that? Life irrelevant to the 2nd law? That statement is clearly erroneous and dare I say, simply irrational. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is inseparable from the mechanisms of the processes of life. Correct? I need say no more.

Next: Consider Isaak's examples of spontaneous "order": snowflakes; sand dunes; tornadoes; stalactites; graded river beds; lightning…

Again, is the "order" found in any of these things got anything to do with increased information, organisation or complexity (i.e. reduced entropy) as demanded by evolutionary theory? These phenomena have no function. Where is the function in snowflakes; sand dunes; tornadoes; stalactites; graded river beds; lightning and don't forget Steiger's crystals? These are not examples of matter self-forming into more organised or more complex structures or systems having function (leading to biological life) as demanded by evolutionary theory.

Why don't they ever supply real examples that result in increased function? Why do they always leap across the vast chasm between these basic examples of "order" with no function to the highly complex examples of living systems that have function; that ALREADY have the complex DNA "program" in place; that already have all the necessary "energy conversion systems" (photosynthesis, metabolism) in place; living systems such as tomatoes, seeds, eggs? They always jump from simple non-life phenomena to full blown life. What happened in between? Can it happen… thermodynamically? Sand dunes to people? Tornados to people? The connection? They're just not relevant. Where are the necessary bio-chemical processes and examples? Where?

Isaak and Steiger are either being deliberately deceptive or they simply ignorant and fail to recognise the profound difference between their examples of low-energy repetitive structures and the high-energy growth processes of living organisms.

I ask: Simple molecules to complex life: How? Avoided. How did the program (DNA) and the energy conversion systems get there in the first place? Avoided. How can it happen yet still obey the Laws of Thermodynamics? Avoided. The abiogenesis problem is always avoided; side-stepped; jumped over; or merely relegated to be "irrelevant".

Face it: Isaak and Steiger are simply regurgitating the same old evolutionary propaganda without actually answering anything. Their equating of these two very different phenomena clearly reveals that they have a serious misunderstanding of the thermodynamic issues involved… or they are being deliberately deceptive and are lying.

It's a fairy tale for adults: Mix a few chemicals, add a little sunlight and a spark, stir well, wave the magic wand of time, and abracadabra… here we all are… and isn't science wonderful?

Where's the relevant bio-chemical science? Where? It's noticeably conspicuous by its absence…

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP14 Mar 2009 8:18 a.m. PST

You obiouvsly have no ide about abiogenesis.

Just becasue you don't understand the answers given to you dons't mean they are wrong.

And how dare creationist talk about magic, as they belive man was made out of clay and women out of a rib

RockyRusso14 Mar 2009 11:47 a.m. PST

Hi

Another false syllogism. there are no known violations….IN THE LONG TERM…. not no known violations ever of the second.

This bald assertian now takes your main complaint about the magic wand of time. When it suits you, suddenly time is the issue, and it is here in "violations" of the second law of thermodynamics.

Second False syllogism: "maintained with great zeal"… which asserts that science is evoking reality like a christian. Which isn't on offer. I promise, if there was a reproducable test for god, all sorts of atheist scientists would do the work and prove their "religion" wrong. This assigning "zeal" and "proof" towards religious beliefs is the limit of the theists, not the scientist who may nor may not have any beliefs at all.

"life reverses.." leaves out the term "temporary" and "time". You keep making assertions to prove your point leaving out significant points.

I think the short version here is everytime you ask "correct?" the answer is "nope another false syllogism to promote your point." In another context these get extreme and are called "straw man arguments". You first invest an idea in your opposition then defeat that idea that wasn't suggested by the people you are corresponding with.

It would be as If I first accused you of being a fundy about the bible, then said "world wide flood" and prove it didn't happen. Or that "unicorn" mistakenly shows up in the bible.

Gunfreak, my friend, I think what he wants is to say "ok, you got me, abiogenesis requires a prime mover, a spark in that premordal sea who designed everything then directed that bolt of power to the perfect place and time to cause the amino acid forms that would be in exactly the right time/place to hook up as protiens that then leads to cellular activity.

Notice how THAT requires we accept a huge number of leaps, bigger leaps than evolution, to get to the same point.

The short verion is the usual anti-evolution propaganda: I don't understand, it is too big to understand, therefore no one understands and this proves the complexity could only arise with the special creation by god.

Same ol' same ol'.

So, TJ now that you have proved God to your satisfaction, suggest a repeatable experiment for these grand leaps, or "which" version of god.

R

Ghecko17 Mar 2009 10:25 p.m. PST

To "R": The nature of your reply is disappointing to say the least… but not unanticipated.

"Another false syllogism. There are no known violations…IN THE LONG TERM… not no known violations ever of the second."

… and yet you fail to provide a single actual example to back up your statement. Let's all wonder why… could it be that there are… er… none… either in the "short term" or the "long term" or any other "term"? If so, then your statement is nothing more than a "bold assertion".

"…reproducible test…"

Ah, the good old reproducible test demand – the "I won't believe it till I see it". Comes back to our old discussion yet again doesn't it – Can you show scientifically (or philosophically for that matter) that the scientific method is the only way to know anything? Mmm…

I'm sorry, but the problem is squarely in YOUR court; YOU need to show evolution is reasonable; after all, YOU are the one who believes it! Have you bothered to look into what you believe or do you just blindly believe it because… I digress…

I ask you: Is there a "reproducible test" for say, how a fish became an amphibian? Or how a reptile became a bird? etc; etc; etc. How do we test these? How would we test these? It seems I'm not the only one with a problem in this area. What about how some simple molecules can come together to form a protein or two? Now that one could be attempted in the lab could it not? But, we still haven't got any answers to that one either have we…

So, when in trouble, one can always trot out the good old "false syllogism" ploy… Correct? Sounds impressive as long as you remember to never give a reason as to WHY it's false… "false syllogism"…"false syllogism"… Why? How exactly? Please enlighten us all. Yes, it may sound impressive, but while the claims are unsupported, it only highlights the fact that you haven't got the answers… Correct?

You need to face something: You've failed to answer anything in these discussions; you haven't even come close. You are clearly a rank amateur when it comes to defending YOUR belief in evolution. Not so you say? Then why accuse me of building a straw-man argument, then do the exact same thing yourself…

"Gunfreak, my friend, I think what he wants is to say "ok, you got me, abiogenesis requires a prime mover, a spark in that primordial sea who designed everything then directed that bolt of power to the perfect place and time to cause the amino acid forms that would be in exactly the right time/place to hook up as proteins that then leads to cellular activity."

In case you haven't noticed, that's the evolutionary scenario; it's not the creationist's scenario and you know it. Further, exactly where and when did I say this? And you have the hide to talk about "straw man" arguments! The whole premise of molecules coming together to form a single celled organism is contrary to everything science knows about the bio-chemistry involved and the thermodynamics involved as previously shown. And then there's this gem:

"The short version is the usual anti-evolution propaganda: I don't understand, it is too big to understand, therefore no one understands and this proves the complexity could only arise with the special creation by god."

In other words, if all else fails, try sarcasm. Pitiful. So, what evidence exactly have you put forward in support of YOUR beliefs in the evolutionary version of abiogenesis? Absolutely nothing! I have shown that the dribble that YOU believe on the Talk Origins site is nothing more than simple rhetoric and propaganda, and yet, you have not even attempted to show how I am wrong and how they are correct – nothing – just attempted sarcasm, rhetoric and the constant screechings of "false syllogism"; "false syllogism". It's so obvious… you're out of your depth. That's why you say…

"So, TJ now that you have proved God to your satisfaction, suggest a repeatable experiment for these grand leaps, or "which" version of god."

I mean what a stupid thing to say – words in my mouth again. I don't recall ever "proving" God nor have I ever attempted to do so. What I have done is to point out that there are some pretty serious problems with the evolutionary thesis of abiogenesis (and evolution in general) and I notice that you in particular continually avoid answering my criticisms thereof.

Clearly, the hypothesised processes involved in abiogenesis (and evolution in general) are contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So, I will ask you directly:

Can you provide ANY actual evidence, any REAL examples of how the evolutionary process can circumvent the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Second Law in particular?

Can you defend YOUR beliefs… or will you take the easy way out and stoop to ridicule and thus highlight the folly of YOUR beliefs? I think we both know the answer to that one. I may be wrong but let's see…

(PS: You obviously and desperately need some help, so here's a tip: Try looking up Oparin's work, Miller and Urey's work and Sidney Fox's work on abiogenesis for a start. In doing so, ask yourself: The science – What did they actually find? The belief – What did they eventually conclude? Are these two scientifically and logically connected or is there a huge jump between the two? Happy hunting.)

Ghecko19 Mar 2009 2:04 p.m. PST

We often see the evolutionary origin of life dismissed as a simple question with simple answers… but in reality, is it?

"When the earth formed some 4.6 billion years ago, it was a lifeless, inhospitable place. A billion years later it was teeming with organisms resembling blue-green algae. How did they get there? How, in short, did life begin? This long-standing question continues to generate fascinating conjectures and ingenious experiments, many of which centre on the possibility that the advent of self-replicating RNA was a critical milestone on the road to life…"

"….all these problems are worrisome, but they do not completely rule out the possibility that RNA was initially synthesised and replicated by relatively uncomplicated processes. Perhaps minerals did indeed catalyse both the synthesis of properly structured nucleotides and their polymerization to a random family of oligonucleotides. Then copying without replication would have produced a pair of complementary strands. If, as Szostak has posited, one of the strands happened to be a ribozyme that could copy its complement and thus duplicate itself, the conditions needed for exponential replication of the two strands would have been established. This scenario is certainly very optimistic, but it could be correct."

Leslie E. Orgel, Senior Fellow and Research Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/2948/orgel.html)

Sounds really confident, doesn't he… Along these lines, some have suggested that life may have begun with simple entities like viruses, viroids (short stretches of RNA that lack a protein coat; known to cause plant diseases) or proteins such as prions (complex folded proteins) and then gradually build up to more complex forms. Unfortunately, all of these entities are parasites on more complex life forms, so they aren't the answer. A parasite only survives because a much more complex host provides the many functions it needs. From the National Academy of Sciences site – "Origin of Life" research area:

"Of course, even if a living cell were to be made in the laboratory, it would not prove that nature followed the same pathway billions of years ago. But it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed. The history of science shows that seemingly intractable problems like this one may become amenable to solution later, as a result of advances in theory, instrumentation, or the discovery of new facts."

That's a telling statement isn't it? "… seemingly intractable problems…"; seemingly intractable or actually intractable? Remember, most NAS members are evolutionists believing in a naturalistic universe. Then there is this candid admission:

"More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present, all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

Klaus Dose, Director of the Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany – "Interdisciplinary Science Review", 1988.

"Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not understand how life came about… I consider that life only starts at the level of a functional cell. The most primitive cell may require at least several hundred different specific biological macro-molecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me. The possibility of the existence of a Creator, of God, represents to me a satisfactory solution to this problem."

Dr. Werner Arber, Professor of Microbiology, University of Basel (recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine 1978)

A NASA sponsored workshop "Trends in Ecology and Evolution" March, 1998, had many origins researchers present. In a paper entitled "Evolution: A Molecular Point of View" the author of the article noted:

"Sherwood Chang opened the program with the cautious reminder that any canonical scenario for the stepwise progression toward the origin of life is still a "convenient fiction." That is, we have almost no data to support the historical transitions from chemical evolution to prebiotic monomers, polymers, replicating enzymes, and finally cells."

Yes, a "convenient fiction" indeed. Andy Knoll, Professor of Biology at Harvard, author of "Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life", was interviewed as part of a PBS NOVA program (May 3, 2004). He is described as a person who has "exhaustively investigated" the origin of life. An excerpt from the interview:

NOVA: "In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?"

Knoll: "The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance."

NOVA: "So at this point we're seeing the origins of life through a glass darkly?"

Knoll: "If we try to summarise by just saying what, at the end of the day, do we know about the deep history of life on Earth, about its origin, about its formative stages that gave rise to the biology we see around us today, I think we have to admit that we're looking through a glass darkly here… We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances. It's a mystery that we're going to chip at from several different directions…"

NOVA: "Will we ever solve the problem?"

Knoll: "I don't know. I imagine my grandchildren will still be sitting around saying that it's a great mystery, but that they will understand that mystery at a level that would be incomprehensible to us today."

So, it appears that the evolutionary thesis on abiogenesis has just a few itsy bitsy problems – doesn't it? I guess that's why the July 2005 issue of Science included in its "Top 25 questions facing science today"… "How and where did life on Earth arise?"

After almost a century of research they still have to ask… How and where did life on Earth arise? And of the future: "…I imagine my grandchildren will still be sitting around saying that it's a great mystery…" Not looking too good is it?

No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve. There's just one of YOUR problems – right there at the start.

Ghecko23 Mar 2009 4:08 p.m. PST

Touché?

imrael24 Mar 2009 5:27 a.m. PST

Boredom

crhkrebs24 Mar 2009 3:10 p.m. PST

TJRaymond,

1) None of the quotes you used showed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics contravenes the principles of Evolution, which of course they cannot. I was taught this as an undergrad in the 70's and nothing has changed since.

Assume evolution doesn't exist. Assume God made all living things as we see them today. As we grow from fetus, to infant to child, to adolescent, and finally to adult, we accrue millions of more cells and much greater complexity. That doesn't mean we are contravening The Second Law either.

In other words, increased complexity through the growth of life does not break any of the laws of Thermodynamics. And this is irrespective of the manner in which life got here. Why? Because the apparent decrease in Entropy for the formation of a complex life form is at the expense of a far greater increase in Entropy of the surrounding environment. Hence Entropy always increases.

This has nothing to do with evolution.

2) You have been shown over and over again that linking evolution with abiogenesis is fallacious. I'm sorry you can't grasp the nature of your error. One deals with how life started, the other deals with how life changes via adaption. Both are interesting concepts in the field of Biology, but it doesn't mean they are the same. It is as ludicrous as trying to equate the concept of Entropy and the concept of the speed of light, just because they both fall within the realm of Physics.

3)You said:

"However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in non-living systems, too. …"

What's was that? Life irrelevant to the 2nd law? That statement is clearly erroneous and dare I say, simply irrational. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is inseparable from the mechanisms of the processes of life. Correct? I need say no more.

Hey Rocky, here is a very nice example of a false syllogism that you can add to your collection.

Life IS irrelevant to the 2nd Law. But the 2nd Law IS NOT irrelevant to life. There is a difference.

4)Where are your examples of TalkOrigens topics being "plain wrong"?

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP25 Mar 2009 4:20 a.m. PST

Oh, and here's a video that show the origien of Multicellular Life

YouTube link

crhkrebs25 Mar 2009 7:29 a.m. PST

I love the videos by AronRa:

YouTube link

RockyRusso25 Mar 2009 10:47 a.m. PST

Hi

Actually, TJ has done a few more false syllogisms:

1)All parasites require other…

Well, no. Some known parasites started as stand alone entities and adapted into parasitism. In this case, TJ has reasoned from the now/specific to the general, and back.

Two:No proof of HOW abiogenesis worked, therefore no cell, no evolution is based on a false unsupported assumption. If god is as good an explanation as any, then so is spontaneous abiogensis.

Three:Not knowing HOW that first spark happened, doesn't disprove the spark OR prove god.

Four: being comfortable with proving god, it doesn't prove which version of god we are talking about.

Five:"having problems with that…" isn't also proof of anything unles you can prove by the same standards another version of the first spark. As in "Genesis" parting the waters?

Six:Proving god as the first spark doesn't disprove evolution or discount it or even affect the concept of evolution.

Seven:the fact of evolution small and large says nothing about God.

Rocky

Ghecko26 Mar 2009 7:39 p.m. PST

Ok:

1) None of the quotes you used showed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics contravenes the principles of Evolution, which of course they cannot. I was taught this as an undergrad in the 70's and nothing has changed since.

Assume evolution doesn't exist. Assume God made all living things as we see them today. As we grow from fetus, to infant to child, to adolescent, and finally to adult, we accrue millions of more cells and much greater complexity. That doesn't mean we are contravening The Second Law either.

A statement of the obvious: that the Law of Biogenesis is true, that is, that life comes from life. Correct? Can you name an organism that didn't have a "parent" of some sort?

Your statement also raises an interesting question: Why is it that when an evolutionist supplies an example, that example ALWAYS has life already existing? Mmm…

In other words, increased complexity through the growth of life does not break any of the laws of Thermodynamics. And this is irrespective of the manner in which life got here. Why? Because the apparent decrease in Entropy for the formation of a complex life form is at the expense of a far greater increase in Entropy of the surrounding environment. Hence Entropy always increases. This has nothing to do with evolution.

This goes back to previous discussions on thermodynamics doesn't it? So, how exactly is it that "…the apparent decrease in entropy for the formation of a complex life form is at the expense of a far greater increase in entropy of the surrounding environment" occurs? You are pretty heavy on the evolutionary propaganda but pretty light on the specific scientific details to back it up. Correct? Still waiting…

2) You have been shown over and over again that linking evolution with abiogenesis is fallacious.

What's that? "…over and over again…"? When? Fallacious? How? False: In what way? I keep presenting this basic equation:

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve (biologically)

So, in what way is this wrong exactly? Evolution via mutation and natural selection needs something for it to work on. Correct? No life = no biological evolution. Correct? No abiogenesis = no biological life. Correct? Still waiting…

I'm sorry you can't grasp the nature of your error. One deals with how life started, the other deals with how life changes via adaption. Both are interesting concepts in the field of Biology, but it doesn't mean they are the same. It is as ludicrous as trying to equate the concept of Entropy and the concept of the speed of light, just because they both fall within the realm of Physics.

Now, there's a classic straw-man argument if I ever saw one: Link two phenomena that are logically not related (light and entropy) as an argument against two phenomena that are logically related (abiogenesis and life). Shoot down the incorrect one (light and entropy) and by inference the other (abiogenesis and life) is assumed to be wrong also. It's a classic straw-man argument and a rather naïve one as well. I repeat:

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve (biologically)

How is this false?

3) You said: "However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in non-living systems, too. …"

What's was that? Life irrelevant to the 2nd law? That statement is clearly erroneous and dare I say, simply irrational. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is inseparable from the mechanisms of the processes of life. Correct? I need say no more."

Hey Rocky, here is a very nice example of a false syllogism that you can add to your collection.

Life IS irrelevant to the 2nd Law. But the 2nd Law IS NOT irrelevant to life. There is a difference.

Firstly, we note where the quote originally came from with which you agree… It's straight off the Talk Origins site. It's not my quote; I was quoting what they said, just as you are.

As for the second half: we appear to agree. The Second Law is not irrelevant to the processes of life; all of life's processes must obey the Laws of Thermodynamics. True?

As for the first half: interesting semantics. I'm sure we would all like to see you explain how life (which of course includes all of the natural processes of life) is irrelevant (immaterial, unrelated, exempt) from the Laws of Thermodynamics… we await your boundless wisdom.

4) Where are your examples of Talk Origens [sic] topics being "plain wrong"?

I have already done so. I can only suggest that you go back and actually read my recent postings about the Talk Origins site and the nonsense that it spews forth on Thermodynamics (from whence the quote came). Come on Ralph; you are being lazy; I'm sure you can do better than this. Moving along…

Actually, TJ has done a few more false syllogisms:

1) All parasites require other…

Well, no. Some known parasites started as stand alone entities and adapted into parasitism. In this case, TJ has reasoned from the now/specific to the general, and back.

Again: the good old "…false syllogisms…" ruse and as usual no explanation as to why. I ask: Why is it that evolutionists ALWAYS start from the point where life ALREADY exists? Why is it that evolutionists NEVER answer the questions on evolutionary abiogenesis? So, when in trouble, why not try a bluff your way through…

Two: No proof of HOW abiogenesis worked, therefore no cell, no evolution is based on a false unsupported assumption. If god is as good an explanation as any, then so is spontaneous abiogenesis.

Could always try the good old "…based on a false unsupported assumption…" ruse, but don't forget, one must always be careful to NEVER explanation why… So, I ask yet again:

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve (biologically)

How is this false?

Three: Not knowing HOW that first spark happened, doesn't disprove the spark OR prove god.

Mmm… Isn't this a somewhat veiled admission that you agree with me in that science doesn't know how evolutionary abiogenesis happened? That they haven't got the answers? That they haven't got ANY answers? That it's all taken in faith? If they (read you also) did have the answers, then you would have thrown them in my face by now. True? But you haven't, have you…?

Four: Being comfortable with proving god, it doesn't prove which version of god we are talking about.

Oh for goodness sake: As I have said several times now, am I not attempting to "prove" God. I thought it would have been obvious that all I am doing is simply pointing out some of the immense problems that the evolutionary thesis has with the question of abiogenesis.

Five: "having problems with that…" isn't also proof of anything unless you can prove by the same standards another version of the first spark. As in "Genesis" parting the waters?

When it comes to evolutionary abiogenesis: are you not "having problems" with explaining it? What was YOUR "first spark"? How did abiogenesis occur? Where's your evidence to support how it happened? Lots of "oh, life came into existence somehow; let's not worry about it; we'll start from there" rhetoric so far… and not much else.

Six: Proving god as the first spark doesn't disprove evolution or discount it or even affect the concept of evolution.

You are incorrect; it would introduce "god" (the supernatural) into the equation, would it not? If "god" was the first spark, then "god" exists… along with all that implies… and we can't have that can we? The concept that "god", any god, had something to do with it all is an anathema to most evolutionists. Bear in mind, I can argue along the same line: You proving "evolution" true would not disprove the existence of "god" either. Correct?

Seven: The fact of evolution small and large says nothing about God.

Ah yes, the so-called "facts" of evolution… like how the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to absolutely everything… um… except the processes of evolutionary abiogenesis of course… and… um… anything else to do with evolution of course!

Seriously, why don't you just present the scientific "evidence" for evolutionary abiogenesis and let it speak for itself…

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP27 Mar 2009 8:08 a.m. PST

Oh, the stupidity hurts me, seriously, your clames are that dumb.

Your statement also raises an interesting question: Why is it that when an evolutionist supplies an example, that example ALWAYS has life already existing? Mmm

Because, as we have tried to tell you an evolutionary biologist(which I asume is what you mean by "evolutionist")
Only deals with life, not non life biology is the study of life.
Abiogenesis is more chemestry then biology

RockyRusso27 Mar 2009 10:46 a.m. PST

Hi

TJ being that you are unfamiliar with the history of the discussion of evolution for 200 years I will try to simply reprise this:

With darwin, the religious demanded it was wrong because it disproved god! Now, you are saying that you accept evoltion, just not any of the abiogenisis models (one I outlined previously).

So, If I resurrect the term "prime mover" as the explanation of abiogenesis, you would now accept evolution?

God and evolution are not incompatible, but it is your side of the argument that has tradtionally insisted it is.

Lets call tha first spark that initiates those long chain amino acids "God". or even "GOD" for the sake of the discussion. I have not ever argued for or against YOUR vision of god. Faith is not amenable to being "proved. I find it curious that "believers" protest the validity of their faith and then insist on proving things.

It isn't the concept of "abiogensis" on the table, it is "proving" your faith.

Rocky

crhkrebs27 Mar 2009 12:18 p.m. PST

TJ,

If we are, as you say, in agreement with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then I am glad. As you must well know the argument, "Evolution contravenes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" is a common position taken with anti-evolutionists.

So, how exactly is it that "…the apparent decrease in entropy for the formation of a complex life form is at the expense of a far greater increase in entropy of the surrounding environment" occurs? You are pretty heavy on the evolutionary propaganda but pretty light on the specific scientific details to back it up. Correct? Still waiting…

Ok, so you didn't seem to understand after all. You seemed to totally miss the part when I said:

In other words, increased complexity through the growth of life does not break any of the laws of Thermodynamics. And this is irrespective of the manner in which life got here.

So this has nothing to do at all with evolutionary propaganda. Living complex organisms do not contravene the 2nd Law because their apparent complexity is more than offset in the increased randomness they have created within their environment by metabolizing nutrients from that environment. Therefore, just because the chemical reactions take place within the confines of a cell, an net increase in randomness still must take place.

I could explain this to you using the example of a single celled organism that wishes to divide into two organisms. The energy it takes this organism to do this (call this E) has to be derived through the environment. The organism must therefore extract more energy than E from the environment to be able to replicate. Therefore, once you have 2 cellular creatures you have an apparent increase in complexity (or, in other words, a decrease in Entropy) in the system. The 2nd Law is still upheld because there is a greater increase in randomness or Entropy within the environment that supplied the original cell with the proper building blocks and nutrients needed for replication. The net result is always increased entropy. Is that simple enough?

Again, this is irrespective of the fact if abiogenesis happened or did not happen, and irrespective of evolution existing or not existing.

For a better understanding of this, I might suggest you look at an entry level college Biology textbook. In my country at least, this is where they deal with the concepts of the Thermodynamics of biological systems. I'll restrict myself to one topic at a time and leave the other topics you brought up later if warranted.

Ralph

Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP28 Mar 2009 9:43 a.m. PST

Now some pleasant music YouTube link along with a hypothesis on abiogensis. It's not yet strong enough for a theory but quite a few facts make it up.

x42

Last Hussar02 Apr 2009 4:58 p.m. PST

TJ
You are posting creationist fallacy after fallacy.

1) Abiogenesis & Evolution. Evolution does need parents, yes. It does not deal with where the Uber-parents came from, just that there were to start with. That could have been the 'lightning strike on the ooze', aliens, something falling back through time travel, even a 'god' of some sort putting down some 1 cell creatures. Evolution doesn't care- just that they were there. Likewise you can have abiogenesis 'life from non life', and no evolution happen.

However, after 20,000 generations with no evolution, if evolution does happen the 'how' the original cells got there is unlikely to affect the future evolution.

2) Order from disorder happens all the time, just in the timescale of the universe it is temporary. Take a load of marbles of the same size. Let them roll down a incline so they are caught at the bottom, and build up rows. They will tend toward hexagons, for a number of mathematical reasons. Soap bubbles are spheres for good reasons to do with surface area. Neither of these need outside interference.

The energy put into the system by the sun is greater than the energy that could be gained from the order there created. 2nd LoTD stands Remember "In a CLOSED system". The Earth is not a closed system. The Solar System is, and will eventually die, fulfilling the 2LoTD.

3) 'I don't need to prove creation- you need to prove evolution' argument you used.
Wrong.
You are making an assertion. You must provide evidence to back that up. EVEN IF EVOLUTION WAS PROVED WRONG TOMORROW, THAT IS NOT PROOF OF GOD. Proving 2+2<>5 does not prove 2+2=3.

3a) Counter to your arguement. If everything was created, then it should have been created correctly- especially if the creator is a 'perfect intelligence/being/etc' which creationists claim.
Why do whales have legs buried in the blubber?
Why are there so many designs for the eye?
Why is the human body so badly designed for walking upright?
Why is the human eye so badly designed?
Ditto the genitals?
Why do different animals get different amounts of teeth- why don't human teeth regrow?
Recessive genes- where did red hair come from- was Eve a gin-ger?
Beards- what's the point? Why only men?
Why are Australian animals so weird?
Why is DNA complexity related to the believed age of the species, not the complexity of the individual?
Those odd creatures that exist at the bottom of the oceans around magma vents- What's the point? Why are some of them red?

You're best one

Can a single cell evolve to become a man in one day? No; impossible you say.
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a hundred years? No; impossible you say.
…yadda yadda yadda
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a hundred million years? No; well… maybe you say.
Can a single cell evolve to become a man in a billion years? Yes you say.

Can you see what happened there? You go from impossible to definitely by just waving the magic wand of time. It's special pleading in its purest form – plain and simple.


Can a Lexus drive from New York to LA in an Hour? No
A day- course not, 2 days,- no- 3 days- small possiblity you say, it depends. 4 days? more likely! 2 weeks- almost certainly. Hmm, the only way you can convince me that a car can cross the US is if I give you enough time! Well, no magic wand for you. Do it in 5 minutes or it proves cars can't move.

Ghecko07 Apr 2009 3:07 p.m. PST

…an evolutionary biologist… only deals with life, not non-life[.] Biology is the study of life… Abiogenesis is more chemistry then biology


Finally, at least someone here who recognises abiogenesis for what it is. Yes, abiogenesis IS chemistry. In fact, chemistry is the only scientific field that can answer definitively the questions on the chemistry that led to life… is it not? If the chemistry says no; then…

Rocky:

Now, you are saying that you accept evolution, just not any of the abiogenesis models (one I outlined previously).

Eh? When exactly did I say that I accepted evolution? Putting words in my mouth again, eh?

So, if I resurrect the term "prime mover" as the explanation of abiogenesis, you would now accept evolution?

No. Why you ask? Simple: Because there are many more problems with the evolutionary thesis than just abiogenesis (one example: How did a single celled organism become a multi-celled organism?). To paraphrase Ralph: "I'll restrict myself to one topic at a time and leave the other topics to later if warranted."

God and evolution are not incompatible, but it is your side of the argument that has traditionally insisted it is. Let's call the first spark that initiates those long chain amino acids "God" or even "GOD" for the sake of the discussion. I have not ever argued for or against YOUR vision of god. Faith is not amenable to being "proved". I find it curious that "believers" protest the validity of their faith and then insist on proving things. It isn't the concept of "abiogenesis" on the table, it is "proving" your faith.

What pure unadulterated balderdash Rocky and you know it. How many times do I have to point out that abiogenesis is all about "proving" YOUR faith not mine. YOU'RE the one who accepts it; YOU'RE the one who believes in it. And again: If "god" (definition: something supernatural) was the prime mover (that is, this "god" provided whatever was needed to bring all the components together and get it all started) then that means that the proposed "god" (the supernatural) actually exists and "god" enters the evolutionary equation along with all that implies… As to which "god": I'll restrict myself to one topic at a time and leave the other topics to later if warranted.

Crhkrebs:

If we are, as you say, in agreement with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then I am glad. As you must well know the argument, "Evolution contravenes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" is a common position taken with anti-evolutionists … [blah, blah, blah]… Ok, so you didn't seem to understand after all. You seemed to totally miss the part when I said: In other words, increased complexity through the growth of lifedoes not break any of the laws of Thermodynamics. And this is irrespective of the manner in which life got here.

Mmm… let's see now: "…increased complexity through the growth of life… irrespective of the manner in which life got here"… In other words, you wish to totally avoid the issues involved with abiogenesis and you wish to start from the place where life ALREADY exists…

So this has nothing to do at all with evolutionary propaganda. Living complex organisms do not contravene the 2nd Law because their apparent complexity is more than offset in the increased randomness they have created within their environment by metabolizing nutrients from that environment. Therefore, just because the chemical reactions take place within the confines of a cell, a net increase in randomness still must take place.

Yes, it appears that I am correct: "…Living complex organisms… (with a metabolism for) metabolizing nutrients from that environment … just because the chemical reactions take place within the confines of a cell …"… You wish to start from the point where life ALREADY exists…

I could explain this to you using the example of a single celled organism that wishes to divide into two organisms. The energy it takes this organism to do this (call this E) has to be derived through the environment. The organism must therefore extract more energy than E from the environment to be able to replicate. Therefore, once you have 2 cellular creatures you have an apparent increase in complexity (or, in other words, a decrease in Entropy) in the system. The 2nd Law is still upheld because there is a greater increase in randomness or Entropy within the environment that supplied the original cell with the proper building blocks and nutrients needed for replication. The net result is always increased entropy. Is that simple enough?

Yes, I am definitely correct: "…using the example of a single celled organism… the environment that supplied the original cell with the proper building blocks and nutrients needed for replication"…

I've made this point before and you only help to prove it: Evolutionists ALWAYS start from the point where metabolizing, replicating organisms ALREADY EXIST. There are never any details or discussions as to how that life came about; never. Then there's our newest participant, Last Hussar, only too keen to also prove my point about evolutionists. What's the very first thing he proposes?

1) Abiogenesis & Evolution. Evolution does need parents, yes. It does not deal with where the Uber-parents came from, just that there were to start with. That could have been the "lightning strike on the ooze", aliens, something falling back through time travel, even a "god" of some sort putting down some 1 cell creatures. Evolution doesn't care – just that they were there. Likewise you can have abiogenesis "life from non life", and no evolution happen.

I mean this is sad, really sad: Lightning? Aliens? Time travel? "god"? Which one? What evidence? Sad. Moving on: You then rather naively suggest:

For a better understanding of this, I might suggest you look at an entry level college Biology textbook…

Well, at least it's not that other suggested reference; that well known pillar of truth – YouTube… For a better understanding of the complex chemistry involved in a cell and the nature of the problems involved with the chemistry, may I shall suggest you read a specialist reference like:

Professor Steven Ross "The Chemistry of Life", Professor of Biology, Leipzig University, p78-82 and I quote:

The second characteristic implicit in the macromolecules is that they are extremely unlikely substances. Those materials that life produces in such abundance still defeat the synthetic techniques of the chemist. In the living cell, such molecules cannot arise by purely random chemical reactions; they must be synthesized according to precisely planned pathways which can achieve specificity far beyond that of the chemist. There must be mechanisms within the cell which can distinguish between even such close relatives as the d- and l- isomers of amino acids, or between sugars such as glucose and galactose.

The principal source of energy for the cell is, of course, glucose…The cell performs this reaction [converting glucose to energy], but it does so in a rather round about manner. It breaks down the glucose by a series of reactions, each time releasing a small amount of energy only. The release of such a large amount of energy in one lump, so to speak, would be too much for the cell to cope with; much of the energy would be dissipated as heat, quite likely destroying the cell in the process. … Glucose is converted to CO2 by a process involving nearly thirty different steps in each one of which a small amount of energy is released.

For the next hundred or so pages he just delves into the chemistry involved in converting glucose to CO2 in a cell. Basically the steps are – glucose to glucose-6-P to fructose-6-P to fructose 1,6.diP to glyceraaldehyde-3-P to glyceraaldehyde-3-P to 3-phosphoglyceric acid to 2-phosphoglyceric acid to phosphor(enol)pyruvic acid to (enol)pyruvic acid to pyruvic acid to lactic acid or tricarboxylic acid (depending on the presence of oxygen). We now enter the citric acid cycle: the pyruvic acid to acetyl-CoA to citric acid to isocitric acid to oxalosuccinic acid to alpha- oxalosuccinic to succinic acid to fumaric acid to malic acid to oxaloacetic acid and with the addition of acetyl-CoA back to citric acid.

The interesting thing about this cascade and merry-go-round is that it very efficiently breaks down the components in very small steps releasing small amounts of energy in the form of ATP at most steps whilst eliminating waste including CO2 and also recovering some of the ATP used along the way.

That's just a quick glimpse at a small part of the actual chemistry involved in a cell; the science; the facts. Further, this is just one of many similarly complex metabolic pathways of the cell which are often interconnected with each other.

When I read this textbook I was staggered at the sheer variety and complexity of the chemistry of the cell. A cell simply doesn't work if the amino acids are wrong; if the sugars are wrong; if any of these steps go wrong; if anything is wrong. If the chemistry goes wrong, the cell chemistry goes wrong and the cell soon ceases to function; it's dead.

So, are we to believe that this sort of chemistry with all its variety and complexity, with all of its feed-backs and specific cycles involving very specific enzymes at each step just happened by time and chance? That sort of reasoning is simply irrational, but the fact of the matter is, whether you realise it or not, is that YOU do believe it… you have no choice; your beliefs dictate that you must believe it despite the fact that such a belief simply defies reason. The computer you are using now is nowhere near as complex as a cell; did your computer just happen by time and chance? Could a computer just happen by time and chance? Could such cell chemistry just happen by time and chance?

"Entry level" textbooks just skim the surface; they have to cover a lot of different topics. However, as you have seen, when you start to get into the details, into the specifics, you habitually find that the facts of science are actually excellent evidence against the evolutionary position, a position I will add that becomes less and less sustainable each day with the more science discovers about the cell and genetics.

Professor Steven Ross "The Chemistry of Life", in his conclusion on p252 speaking about the evolutionary origins of life:

Obviously, it raises innumerable questions and problems. Some are complex chemical issues, such as the origins of the universal existence in living organisms, but not in non-living nature, of "asymmetric" molecules like those of amino acids and sugars. Nor are there yet very satisfactory accounts of the polymerization steps that produced proteins, nucleic acids, and so on from their more primitive ancestors.

The standard evolutionary abiogenesis thesis is not science; it never has been. When boiled down it's merely a belief held about how life began based on personal prejudices, very little evidence and stuff all science. Again:

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve biologically

Well? Where is it? Where's the proper science to back up YOUR version of abiogenesis? Where's the "this is how it happened" evidence? I won't be holding my breath.

(Time traveling alien "gods" who zapped it with lightning perhaps…LOL)

crhkrebs08 Apr 2009 6:33 a.m. PST

I've made this point before and you only help to prove it: Evolutionists ALWAYS start from the point where metabolizing, replicating organisms ALREADY EXIST. There are never any details or discussions as to how that life came about; never.

Sigh…… yes, and that is (for the 10th time) because the two are not related. You have a problem in not seeing that. Your blind insistence in linking these two unrelated topics keeps from having a meaningful discussion. You are the problem here.

I mean this is sad, really sad: Lightning? Aliens? Time travel? "god"? Which one? What evidence? Sad.

You, of course apply the same criteria to ID? Really sad indeed.

When I read this textbook I was staggered at the sheer variety and complexity of the chemistry of the cell. A cell simply doesn't work if the amino acids are wrong; if the sugars are wrong; if any of these steps go wrong; if anything is wrong. If the chemistry goes wrong, the cell chemistry goes wrong and the cell soon ceases to function; it's dead.

So, are we to believe that this sort of chemistry with all its variety and complexity, with all of its feed-backs and specific cycles involving very specific enzymes at each step just happened by time and chance? That sort of reasoning is simply irrational,…………

Ahhh…… the old chestnut,"argumentum ad ignorantiam". At least you are in plentiful company. Read up on this philosophical error before your burden and bore us with your version of it. Then read some Dawkins who addresses it's shortcomings quite well.

And don't steer the conversation away from your shortcomings of biology into that straw man of abiogenesis. At least if you want people here to give you some credence.

Ralph

crhkrebs08 Apr 2009 8:05 a.m. PST

We now enter the citric acid cycle: the pyruvic acid to acetyl-CoA to citric acid to isocitric acid to oxalosuccinic acid to alpha- oxalosuccinic to succinic acid to fumaric acid to malic acid to oxaloacetic acid and with the addition of acetyl-CoA back to citric acid.

Thanks for the lecture. I'm actually very familiar with this. In fact a distant relative (I believe a second cousin to my grandfather) discovered it. Hence the name "Krebs Cycle".

I believe Sir Hans Krebs was a confirmed evolutionist too.

Ralph

imrael08 Apr 2009 8:59 a.m. PST

Must be cool to be related to Krebs. I was at uni at Sheffield, where the Biochem department was still basking in the fact that he worked there, even though he'd moved on well before the Nobel-winning work.

Is the Krebs who is (was?) head of the food standards agency another relative?

RockyRusso08 Apr 2009 10:55 a.m. PST

Hi

TJ…your refutation is based on faulty assumptions.

1)aboigenesis isn't the first point of proving or disproving evolution which is observed.

2)simple to complex happened as well. Not being able to do either in a lab is irrelevant to the concept of evolution being a fact. You are insisting that as you don't understand the concept, it didn't happen.

Actually, this is related to my DEFENSE of Genesis.

The bible was reported to stone age savages with no number bigger than a thousand in their vocabulary. Devine inspiration notwithstanding, the audience could not memorize concepts too big for their brain.

The basic flaw of all religions is this: they claim to understand a GOD who made the amazing complexity of the universe, and then insist that no one else can understand much smaller detail concepts if it isn't in the bible.

That is the pitiful part. Just as the first big number in the Bible is "myriad" for 10,000, the other greek concept of HUBRIS is to be considered.

That there are ideas on how Abiogenesis happened but we aren't sure how doesn't disprove ANYTHING.

or as I pointed out the problem with your posts, if I accept that GOD did abiogenesis, that doesn't mean you would accept evolution. As with all the nuts, unless I can identify every minor tweek in the steps of evolution for everything to your satisfaction, evolution never happened.

This is like saying TJ doesn't exist because he cannot idendtify which of the millions of sperm ejaculated actually reached the right egg to make HIM.

it happened, not knowing the details doesn't prove that TJ doesn't exist.

Which is the essence of the current dismissal of evolution.

What is the option offered? God keeps inventing out of nothing everything. meaning, by extension, that there was no need for TJ to have parents.

Rocky

crhkrebs08 Apr 2009 12:36 p.m. PST

Is the Krebs who is (was?) head of the food standards agency another relative?

I doubt it. I also do not seem to be related to the other Hans Krebs who was Hitler's last Chief of Staff (thank goodness). My grand father left for Iran to build highways for the Shah when the other part of the family sought refuge in England. I think that was 1932-33 or so, around the time of the Nazi election.

Ralph

imrael08 Apr 2009 1:59 p.m. PST

Ralph – turns out that Sir John (now Baron) Krebs is Hans Krebs son, so he will be a distant relative. I'll spare you Hitlers chief of staff though :)

crhkrebs08 Apr 2009 4:06 p.m. PST

Hi Imrael,

I had to Wiki Baron John (or Uncle Johnny as I'm going to call him from now on) to find out who he is. A specialist in bird behavior. You can get a Peerage for that? Think he'd let me use the estate when I visit England? Oddly enough, he used to teach in my own country at the University Of British Columbia…..only 3000 miles from where I now live, haha.

Also, fortunately for this discussion, he is also an evolutionist. One of his books is, Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell, (1st ed. 1978) where he co-wrote a chapter with Richard Dawkins!

Ralph (who suddenly feels he is in the shallow end of the gene pool)

:^)

Last Hussar09 Apr 2009 9:28 a.m. PST

TJ- What's it like being that … WRONG?

Let us take your laughable attempt to sneer at my post.

I mean this is sad, really sad: Lightning? Aliens? Time travel? "god"? Which one? What evidence?

That's the point, we do not know. I'm very sorry if you actually thought I was proposing any of those. But hey, You are an IDer- Aliens, Gods, that's EXACTLY what you propose. You of course, in common with all ID-oits, completely ignored the point that was being made- EVOLUTION IS INDEPENDENT OF ABIOGENISIS. I'll repeat that, as you have so far failed to grasp that very simple point up to now. EVOLUTION IS INDEPENDENT OF ABIOGENISIS. EVOLUTION IS INDEPENDENT OF ABIOGENISIS. EVOLUTION IS INDEPENDENT OF ABIOGENISIS. Got it? Probably not.
Just because something can not be explained does not mean your invisible sky-being is doing it. Lightning. What causes Lightning? 2,000 years ago mankind tended to say a god of some form caused lightning. But then an scientific explanation was found. Oh look- it was not gods after all. So now we start with the position that if we do not know something then any proposed explanation must have some form of testable basis. But you don't like that, do you, when we start asking for your designer? You are completely unable to provide any evidence for a designer.
Some form of abiogenisis must have happened, because life patently does exist. Life must have come from non life at some point EVEN IF ALL LIFE ON EARTH WAS PLACED HERE BY A DESGNER THE DESIGNER MUST HAVE COME FROM SOMEWHERE. However we have NO evidence for a Designer, and testable evidence for evolution (even if you stick your fingers' in your ears' and say "la la la not true"). But then, TJ, how do we know you exist? FACT – all people who are alive today must have Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents. Please prove all 1,024 existed. If you can not prove they all existed, I will be forced to assume you were placed here by aliens. I don't have to prove the existence of aliens, as it is you who can not prove your human lineage.

Ghecko10 Apr 2009 5:37 p.m. PST

…the old chestnut, "argumentum ad ignorantiam"…

Strictly, wouldn't it be "ignotum per ignotius" (the unknown by means of the more unknown)? Anyway… what you suggest is that there is an argument from ignorance. Rather back-to-front logic that leads you to say this; I best explain.

Ignorance: noun: lack of knowledge, information or education; the state of being ignorant.

I presented the details on the sheer complexity of just one metabolic pathway in the cell and what a professor of biology concluded after many years of study into the actual chemistry of life. HE concluded (not me) that when it comes to the naturalistic origins of life, that there were "innumerable questions and problems" (and I agree with him).

Further, Professor Steven Ross "The Chemistry of Life", in his conclusion on p248 speaking about the evolutionary origins of life also says this:

…for even the simplest of present day living organisms are highly complex, highly improbable molecular structures, whose chance assembly from their elements would involve odds of such astronomic unlikelihood that we may regard it, for practical purposes, as impossible. The chemicals which compose present life forms require to be synthesized by specifically catalyzed reactions, and these specifically catalyzed reactions, and these specific catalysts are themselves the products of living organisms and cannot arise spontaneously.

If such a well informed biochemist (not me) with all the "knowledge, information and education" required concludes that it is impossible for life to have evolved via natural compounds and natural processes (and I do agree with him), then how can you conclude that his conclusion is an "argumentum ad ignorantiam"? By that sort of reasoning, any thoroughly researched conclusion by any such expert in their field could be called an "argumentum ad ignorantiam", not because it is or isn't, no, simply because… you say it is. For you to say it is so without any presenting any "knowledge, information or education" to support your conclusion would surely rate as a good illustration of an "argumentum ad ignorantiam"…

And don't steer the conversation away from your shortcomings of biology into that straw-man of abiogenesis. At least if you want people here to give you some credence.

…And what of experts in their fields like Professor Steven Ross and their credibility? He no doubt has a more intimate knowledge of the biochemistry of life than anyone here, yet by your reasoning, his conclusions were an "argumentum ad ignorantiam"… and so we go around in circles yet again.

Ok: We need to get off this merry-go-round for a while.

Ralph – I'm going to pause for just a little while to give you (if you will excuse the pun) the time and chance to carefully explain to both me and to the others here how the following is a "straw-man" argument:

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve biologically

How exactly is it that abiogenesis and biological evolution are NOT linked?

I say they are inescapably linked; you (and others here) insist that there is no link between the two. I therefore ask you to please spell it out clearly and in detail for us all. Where is it that I'm wrong? I shall patiently await your detailed reply, and I shall ignore all other replies for now. It's over to you.

One last thing though; I must reply to some serious nonsense that Hussar posted:

Can a Lexus drive from New York to LA in an Hour? No. A day – course not, 2 days – no – 3 days – small possibility you say, it depends. 4 days? More likely! 2 weeks – almost certainly. Hmm, the only way you can convince me that a car can cross the US is if I give you enough time! Well, no magic wand for you. Do it in 5 minutes or it proves cars can't move.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, an "ignoratio elenchi" (the fallacy of supposing that an argument proves or disproves a proposition when in fact it only establishes an irrelevant conclusion). What's driving a car across the USA got to do with abiogenesis or biological evolution? Why do evolutionists always use man-made devices in their examples?

Ok; I know what he's angling at – we need to consider the Lexus as an example of a biological organism. Correct? If so, then I ask: Did the Lexus "evolve" over time as it drove across the USA? Of course not; it started out a Lexus, it travels as a Lexus and it ends up as a Lexus, regardless of whether it took 3 days or 3 weeks or 3 years. This is not only a good example of a fallacy, it's totally irrelevant.

However, if it started out as just a wheel, then progressed to a unicycle to a bicycle to a small motorcycle to a large motorcycle to a motor-trike to a small car to a car to a station wagon to light truck to a truck to a large truck to a bus to a double deck bus, with small changes at each step to some of it components leading to a different "vehicle" each time, then his argument might have some merit as an example of an organism's "evolution" over time. A Lexus becoming a Lexus becoming a Lexus and staying a Lexus ad infinitum is not "evolution". Even I grasp that "evolution" needs change – no, it demands change – a simple concept that Hussar seems to be grappling with. Never mind; if you will pardon the pun again, let's give him some time…

Ok. So it's over to you Ralph. Can you show us in some logical manner how abiogenesis and biological evolution are NOT linked? I will give you a week or two to consider and post your explanation, and please, no "just because I say so" explanations; let's see some clear evidence, a clear explanation and some good logic.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP11 Apr 2009 6:39 a.m. PST

Anybody doubting evolution look at this video
YouTube link

crhkrebs11 Apr 2009 8:12 a.m. PST

TJR,

First off, thanks for dispensing with the insults in your last posts. That is a refreshing change. And now to my points.

1) It is Steven ROSE not Steven ROSS, as you have written multiple times. He is also not at the University of Leipzig as you wrote on April 7th. Are you sure you are not confusing his place of work with the publisher of his textbook? He teaches in London.

2) Make sure you are not reading the 1966 issue of "The Chemistry of Life". Unfortunately, the most current edition is still 18 years old now.

3) I don't believe Dr. Rose says what you think he does in that sample you provide. To me it sounds like he is hedging his bets on abiogenesis, nothing more.

4) Dr. Rose is an evolutionist. Together with fellow evolutionist, the late Stephen Jay Gould, Rose spearheaded the attack on Dr Richard Dawkins evolutionary theories of Gradualism and Evolutionary Adaptionism in the late "70's. I heard Dr Dawkins defend his position against this at the University of Toronto in the early ‘80's. Many anti-evolutionists have made much of the battle with the Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium mechanisms for evolutionary change, (mostly between Gould and Dawkins, btw). All to no avail. All the men involved are/were staunch evolutionists. For further proof, please look at Rose's other writings such as:

a) Not in Our Genes, 1984, ISBN 0-394-72888-2

b) Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against Evolutionary Psychology 2000 ISBN 0-609-60513-5

A better textbook (as it is more up to date and is much more widely read), that you would be interested in is:

c) Miller, K.R. and Levine, J. (2002) Biology: The Living Science, ISBN-10: 0134261070
You can get it for a pittance on Amazon. Kenneth Miller recently gained some fame by being one of the expert witnesses for the plaintiffs at the Dover School Board hearings in the USA.

5) I'm very happy with "argumentum ad ignorantiam", thank you. It works just fine in describing your argument. It is the argument of your own personal incredulity.

as to:

I will give you a week or two to consider and post your explanation, and please, no "just because I say so" explanations; let's see some clear evidence, a clear explanation and some good logic.

I don't need a week.

1) Abiogenesis is a term that describes the creation of life from non-living components. Since there was a time where no life existed on Earth and now life does exist, abiogenesis has happened. Whether it was caused randomly by the aggregation of large molecules on a wet clay surface, or a Divine Creator created life exactly as explained in Genesis, abiogenesis has occurred and is not germane to your question.

2) Evolution is a slippery thing to define. See TalkOrigens for a good assessment of these difficulties. I happen to like Dr. Laurence Moran's simple definition of, "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."

3) Darwinism is a theory that describes the mechanism by which evolution can occur by the application of natural selectivity.

As you can clearly see from the definitions, and many others that can be gleaned from scientific sites in the Internet, Evolution, Darwinism and Abiogenesis are not the same and are mechanisms that are independent of each other. The characteristics and behavior of one is not dependent on the characteristics and behavior of the other. Ergo, they are different.

Dr. Rose is a good example of one who holds this position. He is an evolutionist who, if I may grant you this, suggests that the, "….chance assembly from their elements would involve odds of such astronomic unlikelihood that we MAY regard it, FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, as impossible." (Emphasis is mine). Clearly for him, his acceptance of the validity of evolution can coexist with any doubts he may have regarding abiogenesis. He doesn't seem to equate evolution and abiogenesis to the degree you expect us to. In other words, his difficulty with abiogenesis does not undermine his belief in the validity of the theory of evolution.

….and some good logic.

Huh? As you well know, from your bandying about of terms such as "ignoratio elenchi", you cannot PROVE the non-existence of a concept in logic. However, this is exactly what you have demanded of me. Your concept is that evolution and abiogenesis are so tightly interwoven that the existence of one, namely evolution, is mutually dependent on the existence of the other, abiogenesis. This is your Straw-Man.

However, since it IS possible to PROVE the existence of a concept, I'm afraid the burden is put back on you to convince us (and let's not make any bones about this, you are the only one who shares your viewpoint on this thread) that abiogenesis and evolution are so closely intertwined that the refutation of one, refutes the other. Good logic indeed.

As an aside, for a simple explanation of anti-evolutionary "Straw man" arguments, see this link, below. Make sure you check out the third last line at the bottom.

link

Ralph

crhkrebs11 Apr 2009 8:55 a.m. PST

One last thing though; I must reply to some serious nonsense that Hussar posted:

Can a Lexus drive from New York to LA in an Hour? No. A day – course not, 2 days – no – 3 days – small possibility you say, it depends. 4 days? More likely! 2 weeks – almost certainly. Hmm, the only way you can convince me that a car can cross the US is if I give you enough time! Well, no magic wand for you. Do it in 5 minutes or it proves cars can't move.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, an "ignoratio elenchi" (the fallacy of supposing that an argument proves or disproves a proposition when in fact it only establishes an irrelevant conclusion). What's driving a car across the USA got to do with abiogenesis or biological evolution?

It is only "serious nonsense" if you miss Hussars point, which you have. Driving the car has nothing to do with abiogenesis or evolution. Hussar brought that up that metaphor in response to this quote of yours:

You go from impossible to definitely by just waving the magic wand of time. It's special pleading in its purest form – plain and simple.

Time has an important bearing in both evolution and with Hussar's Lexus. There is no magic wand in either case. Please read peoples arguments carefully before you start labeling them "nonsense".

Ralph

RockyRusso11 Apr 2009 11:57 a.m. PST

Hi

And, indeed, humanity DID start with "the wheel" and over time this lead to the complexity of the modern automobile.

the american indian invented the wheel, but didn't have the intellectual leap to make the step to "wagon" but stopped with "children's toy"…which actually by analogy doesn't prove TJ's point!

We observe that abiogenesis happened. We also observe that evolution has happened.

Now, the sole argument in both cases is the impetus. God, natural accident, god and natural accident or procedure.

TJ hinges his entire arguement with "too complex for me to see, therefore GOD".

This is a basic false syllogism as well. First, it is demonstrable that TJ not knowing every process cannot demonstrate that just because he doesn't know it must be god.

And the reverse, second, is that genesis has it wrong. Starting, of course, with 6 days. Then, of course "resting". when did god resume? No proof just assertians. Thus Genesis is wrong, and 6 days are wrong doesn't prove anything. But TJ wants one and not the other.

Complexity doesn't prove god nor does evolution disprove god.

Rocky

Last Hussar11 Apr 2009 6:58 p.m. PST

Ok; I know what he's angling at
As crhkrebs noted- No you don't. I placed a direct comparison after your quote and you completely missed the point. Given that are you sure that you are understanding the complex science of biology? It looks like you are just dragging up the discredited 'irreducable complexity' arguments from Behe et al. Every time a 'irreducably complex' organism is identified, a possible evolutionary path is given. Then the next one is given, and so on.

Eventually what happens is the biologists say enough is enough- creationists offer no evidence of creation, we are sick of the vacuous questions, no more. Creationists then say "Oooh look- won't debate- ergo we are right". Its a bit like being asked is 1+1=3. No 1+1=2. Is 1+2=9? and so on, until the 'teacher' declines to correct, so the questioner can claim 1+99 = 2783.

Creationist continually make the logical error of 'if we can't explain it, there must be a god doing it', which doesn't necessarily follow. Luckily for mankind there have always been those who try and find out, hence we know about lightning, and bacteria, and typhoid, etc. I wonder if the first caveman who spotted the link between sex and pregnancy upset the shaman who was trying to claim earth goddess put the baby in there.

Ghecko14 Apr 2009 8:10 p.m. PST

Popped in to see what was happening…

First off, thanks for dispensing with the insults in your last posts. That is a refreshing change. And now to my points.

Oh please – Insults? When have I insulted anybody exactly? If you are going to accuse me of insulting anybody, then at least have the fortitude to specify where and what I have said.

Yes, I checked and it is Steven Rose not Steven Ross, a mere typo; think of it as an example of a "mutation"… The copy I have of "The Chemistry of Life" is the 1972 paperback issue. Is this a problem? How much of the actual biochemistry detailed in the book has changed? Well? … Has any of the biochemistry been disproven or discarded? Well? … The science, the biochemistry described in the book is still as applicable today despite the book's age and my little "mutation"… I wonder how much of Darwin's original work remains intact…

I don't need a week…

Nor did I ever believe that you would…

1) Abiogenesis is a term that describes the creation of life from non-living components.

A simple statement of fact; on this we agree, though in the context above the word "creation" is perhaps not the best word for a believer in evolution to use…

Since there was a time where no life existed on Earth and now life does exist, abiogenesis has happened.

Yet another simple statement of fact; on this we agree.

Whether it was caused randomly by the aggregation of large molecules on a wet clay surface, or a Divine Creator created life exactly as explained in Genesis, …

So, which was it? …an aggregation of large molecules on a wet clay surface (just one of many such naturalistic scenarios)… or a Divine Creator created life … and don't forget it could be a bit of both? And therein is the point I'm trying to get across: Which is it? Was abiogenesis a purely naturalistic process or did it require some form of supernatural input… and all that that implies.

…abiogenesis has occurred and is not germane [relevant, connected] to your question.

At this point of your response this is an unsupported statement of belief on which we have always disagreed.

2) Evolution is a slippery thing to define…

Yes, on this we can definitely agree. That's why discussions between creationists and evolutionists get so heated at times; we have differing worldviews, concepts and definitions in mind when it comes to what a word like "evolution" is and what it is not. Being "a slippery thing to define" also means that any associated concepts and definitions can also be very slippery to define…

3) Darwinism is a theory that describes the mechanism by which evolution can occur by the application of natural selectivity.

Now, before we go any further, let it be clear that I accept natural selection as a real process, a process that operates on living organisms. Natural selection, as such, definitely operates in weeding out the gene pool within a species. What I don't accept, for various reasons, is that mutations and subsequent natural selection leads to a process (that is, "evolution") that eventually leads to different species. That's where I stand.

Does natural selection (as we understand it) need something biological to work on? Of course it does. If you don't have anything biological that can mutate (such as a living organism), then even if natural selection as a biological process exists (and it does) then it clearly would have nothing to work on (no organism = no cells = no DNA = no mutations), thus biological evolution, even if it did exist as a process, could not proceed. To state the obvious, biological "evolution" needs something "biological" on which to work; a simple statement of fact.

As you can clearly see from the definitions, and many others that can be gleaned from scientific sites in the Internet, Evolution, Darwinism and Abiogenesis are not the same and are mechanisms that are independent of each other. The characteristics and behavior of one is not dependent on the characteristics and behavior of the other. Ergo, they are different.

Ok, it took a while but we finally got to what I consider a response to my question. Here, you quite categorically state that "evolution, Darwinism and abiogenesis are not the same…are independent of each other… are not dependent on the characteristics and behavior of the other(s)… that they are fundamentally different". Correct? On these points we disagree.

Question: Are evolution, Darwinism and abiogenesis really as "independent of each other" as you claim? Let's see. Remember, I asked:

No abiogenesis = no living reproducing cell = nothing to evolve biologically

How exactly is it that abiogenesis and biological evolution are NOT linked?

I still say they are inescapably linked; you (and others here) still maintain that there is no link between them. So as to minimize any confusion, let's check some dictionary definitions. Note; I supplied my reference: Collins Dictionary, 1981, ISBN 0 00 433078-1. Starting with:

Chemistry: noun: the branch of physical science concerned with the composition, properties and reactions of substances.

Ok; chemistry obviously links directly to:

Biochemistry: noun: the study of the chemical compounds [composition, properties], reactions, etc, occurring in living organisms.

Living organisms has obvious links to:

Evolution: noun: 1) Biology: A gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants [i.e. living organisms] over successive generations. See also natural selection.

Which is also linked to:

Evolve: verb: 1) to develop or cause to develop gradually. 2) (of animal or plant species) [i.e. living organisms] to undergo evolution of (organs or parts). 3)…[C17: from the Latin "evolvere" to unfold, from "volvere" to roll]

So, chemistry, biochemistry, evolution and the processes of evolving are all linked. No chemistry; no life. Now start again at:

Chemistry: noun: the branch of physical science concerned with the composition, properties and reactions of substances.

Chemistry clearly links to:

Abiogenesis: noun: the hypothetical process [i.e. chemistry, reactions] by which living organisms arise from inanimate matter [i.e. chemical composition and properties]: formerly thought to explain the origins of micro-organisms, also called spontaneous generation, autogenesis. Compare biogenesis.

Interesting: "hypothetical"; "formerly thought to explain". To exist, those living organisms and micro-organisms that arose obviously rely on their:

Biochemistry: noun: the study of the chemical compounds [composition, properties], reactions, etc, occurring in living organisms.

So, chemistry, biochemistry and abiogenesis are also all linked. No chemistry; no abiogenesis. Summarizing:

The process of biological "evolution" requires living organisms. Correct?
Living organisms exist by virtue of their biochemistry which is a branch of chemistry. Correct?
Therefore evolution, biochemistry, chemistry and living organisms are all inescapably linked. Correct?

Abiogenesis consists of the physical/chemical processes resulting in the biochemistry necessary for a living organism to arise. Correct?
Living organisms exist by virtue of their biochemistry which is a branch of chemistry. Correct?
Therefore abiogenesis, biochemistry, chemistry and living organisms are all inescapably linked. Correct?

So, if words and their meanings mean anything, the nature of abiogenesis is inescapably linked to the well established sciences of chemistry and biochemistry which are likewise inescapably linked to the very existence of living organisms and thus "evolution".

So, I wondered: Why would you continually maintain your belief that abiogenesis and evolution are not linked in any way? You offer a clue:

Dr. Rose "… MAY regard it, FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, as impossible." … In other words, his difficulty with abiogenesis does not undermine his belief in the validity of the theory of evolution.

Clearly, what you are suggesting here is that even if something is, for all "practical purposes", shown to be impossible (and as you have pointed out, that conclusion was by a learned evolutionist), that because it wasn't shown to be "absolutely" impossible, then there is still a chance to cling to, no matter how microscopically small, that it still "may" have happened… somehow… somewhere… sometime. Sounds scientific doesn't it?

That's why people maintain their unfounded belief that abiogenesis and evolution are not linked in any way. To change your mind would be to concede that a naturalistic abiogenesis is impossible and that would open the door to the possibility of the supernatural existing; you would have to "let a divine foot in the door"… and all that implies.

britishlinescarlet215 Apr 2009 12:21 p.m. PST

What I don't accept, for various reasons, is that mutations and subsequent natural selection leads to a process (that is, "evolution") that eventually leads to different species. That's where I stand.

Just out of interest, what do you actually believe? How do you think such an ecological diverse world came into being? How old do you think the Earth is? Do you actually believe that man is the pinnacle of life on Earth and always will be?

Fascinating!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34