Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

Bob

I have shown things that happen in real life that if your assertion were true would not be possible. I have shown beneficial mutations. I have shown new functions evolving. I have shown new traits evolving. In short, I have shown that your assertion about the application of entropy to evolution is not grounded in fact.

 

"Proteins are comprised of a great many amino acid chains - not just one."

So what? I have shown the mechanism where a change in a single nucleotide results in a new amino acid being substituted. This leads to a new protein. The new protein can either do its job better, it can do its job worse, or it can do a new job. You cannot show why only changes where it does its job worse is allowed.

 

"The YEC position has never been that minor mutations resulting in proteins or enzymes that activate or deactivate a given gene - can not occur within the complex system that God has designed."

But i have shown you where whole new families of proteins have arisen from the duplication and mutation of a single gene. Families with wide ranging functions. This is not simply the activation or deactivation of a single gene.

 

"I.e. you are "proposing" that you can prove "there is no VAST DECREASE in entropy" needed for the evolution of complex biological systems "

Nope. Entropy has a role. I am saying that contrary to your assertion, entropy does not prevent beneficial mutations. They are chemically identical and both happen. Natural selection weeds out the bad and conserves the good.

 

" An argument that IF mutation can occur at ALL - then no decrease in entropy is needed OR is it an argument that we see no INCREASE in entropy in the every day function of biological systems "EVEN systems not mutating" as Asimov states it"

Nope. Entropy plays a role. But it does not prevent evolution. As I have empirically demostrated by showing beneficial mutations, by showing the evolution of genes, by showing new traits and forms arising.

 

"New Traits"? As in Wolf becoming poodle?"

I believe I gave you both the evolution of feathers from nothing through intermediate froms all the way to flight feathers. I believe I showed the body changes that took place at the same time leading to warmbloodedness and eventually flight. Reptiles to birds.

 

"When you say "if my assertion were true" - which assertion is that?

My assertion that evolution "requires" a "Vast decrease in entropy"? (taken from your own quote of Asimov). Is that the one you question?"

You're playing games.

You assert that entropy prevent evolution. I want to know what exactly it prevents. You seem to have indicated in the past that you think it prevents beneficial muations that lead to new functions and traits. Well I have shown all this to have happened here in real life. So apparently, entropy does not pose a problem. If it does, what exactly does it prevent from happening? Give me one hypothetical step that can not happen because of entropy and why?

 

"The key is to show the SAME animal - the SAME species "gaining a feather" Not to show TWO diffirent body plans - having a number of distinctions - one of which you have great interest in. The argument is evotionism is not a NEW species started independently of the old - but rather the old is very slowly and very gradually morphing ITSELF into the new - same animal, same body plan with just the ONE delta."

Traits do not change in isolation. Whole systems change as the entire organism adapts. And as it does, it forms a new species. Look at the beauty of the theropod dinosaurs as they became warm blooded. So many changes that all played off one another. Individually, they would not have been so advantageous. For example, if thermoregulation is not changing to be more warmblooded, then there is not a need for feathers. Any proto-feathers would have served no purpose and would not have been retained if they were not needed to conserve heat.

 

"Oops! that would be a transitional form. Sorry I mentioned it."

I have given you transitionals until I am blue in the face. Here is the text of one such post.

 

" biological systems DO exhibit INCREASED entropy manifest as a drive to disorder and decay"

Let's put it this way. Yes the flow of energy is a struggle for life. Look at life on earth. You will see that the struggle boils down to gathering enough energy to stay alive and staying alive long enough to see that offspring survive. Entropy plays its role in that. But the evidence is that life overcomes just well enough to survive and to even diversify and florish. The evidence shows that evoltion has taken place. Can you show me any alleged step in evolution that is prevented by entropy and why?

 

If you apply entropy the way Bob applies it, not only is evolution impossible, but population growth is also impossible. The argument is that a minutely more complex organism cannot come from a less complex organism. However, if that is the case, then how can two organisms (let's call them Mom and Dad) have three children? This too would violate Bob's version of entropy since you have far more highly-ordered matter in five human beings than in two human beings. A more extreme example is billions of people coming from eight people who survived the flood. Wouldn't there be more complexity in billions of people, including billions of brains, than in eight people? Certainly a lot of that complexity is shared among all or most of the people, but that does not change the fact that the total amount of highly-ordered matter has increased.

So, evolution is not the only problem if you apply entropy the way Bob does. Population growth is also no longer allowed.

If I am misinterpreting you, please explain how entropy prevents a beneficial mutation but does not prevent population growth.

 

Mercury

You are right. Bob has painted himself right into a corner with this. The way he takes entropy would prevent a population from getting bigger, for is not two living organisms of lower entropy than one. It would even prevent the growth of a single organism, for is not a functioning organism of lower entropy than the raw parts that went into making the organism.

But let's go back. Way back on page two, wow that was a long time to go through this single topic, Bob said, in response to the possibility of evoution that "Entropy denies it." Then we fool around for a little while before he returns to the subject of entropy on page 6 where he first introduces us to the famous quote. Now at this point he says "The evolutionist needs to pretend that there is no connection between biological systems and entropy. No connection between mythical self-ordering systems that aggregate and assimilate new genetic information over time - and entropy." My emphasis. He clearly ties entropy to the inability to add new genetic information.

Again on page 7: "And that means no "man-to-molecule" self-ordering and "auto-injection" of genetic information to "leap up the chains of taxonomy"." He is again tying entropy to the evolution of new genes. Later on the same page he says "Entropy does not allow a bat to grow feathers over time and turn into a bird." Now skipping over the obvious strawman, it is new and useful traits that Bob is being said is prevented by entropy. Again on page nine he says that the result of entropy is that "You can not "acquire" new improved genetic data that was never there in the first place."

As we can plainly see, Bob went on for pages claiming that this is how he saw entropy as a problem for evolution. That it prevents new "information" from evolving. I first demonstrated that there is not a difference between a good mutation and a bad mutation for a force to act upon at the chemical level and select one as possible and one as not possible. I gave the example of a single nucleotide substitution where replacing a specific base pair with a different base pair that is between two other specific base pairs can result in either a beneficial or a harmful mutation, but that the chemistry is exactly the same. The response? [backpeddle]Yeah, uh...but...That is just one amino acid. Protiens are made of many amino acids.[/backpeddle] Ignoring that a new amino acid makes for a new protein. I also give examples of benficial mutations. Hmm, maybe evolution is possible. So I then propose that one way new "information" can come about is through the duplication and subsequent mutation of an existing gene. So I go find examples of where entire families of genes with diverse functions in the body have evolved in this manner. That, to me, is a huge blow against not only his specific argument but the whole information argument in general. We can even further tie it together by showing that the silent nucleotides have diverged more than the others. That would be a very hard one to explain if you want to claim that all the genes were seperate, original creations. I have also shown examples of new traits arising in both our own observations and in the fossil record. All of this offers strong empirical proof that the "new information" that Bob says cannot be produced because of entropy has actually happened.

I think that Bob has recognized that his original argument has been shot down, because you will notice now that his reasoning has changed. He now says things like "EVEN your own Atheist Evolutionist sources agree that it would require a VAST DECREASE in entropy to accomplish a molecule-to-human-brain sequence of evolutionary steps." And "I.e. you are "proposing" that you can prove "there is no VAST DECREASE in entropy" needed for the evolution of complex biological systems - no matter what Asimov has stated to the contrary." And "HE argues that your statement above - applied in succession until a human brain is formed requires "A VAST DECREASE in Entropy"."

Now he is making a different argument. He keeps attacking me for not refuting it, but I see nothing to refute. I have refuted his asserted consequences very well and he has not even made a half hearted attempt to show these various lines of evidence to be wrong. There is not reason to refute his current assertions because, well, they are right in a way. Go back to what I said at the beginning of the post. Or even what you said, Mercury. To go from where I did not exist at all to me sitting here at this desk did require a local decrease in entropy. But I am sitting here. Likewise to have gone from no life on this planet to the biosphere we see today did require a decrease in the entropy of the materials making up the life. But, again, it was a local decrease in entropy while the entropy of the universe increased in the process. Life in all its forms will require a local decrease in entropy, but it is accompanied by a much larger increase in the entropy of the universe. Thermodynamics continues to work.

Now, Bob may decide to try and make some argument here, though I do not know offhand what it might be. I am sure he will come up with something. But if entropy is this kind of problem, then none of us should be here because our growth required local decreases in entropy. But we are here. Thermodynamics does not prevent local decreases in entropy. They happen all the time. He may try and assert that there is something special about life that directs the flow of energy in an "intelligent" way. But look at nature. If I bury organic material and subject it to heat and pressure for a while, will all those short organic molecules not join up all by themselves into longer and longer chains making oil or coal? Will water vapor in the atmosphere not spontaneously condense into water, a much lower entropy system, and even freeze into ice, a still lower level of entropy? Will cooling lava now make minerals where all the atoms line up in very regular patterns we call crystals with a corresponding decrease in entropy? See, entropy spontaneously decreases all by itself all the time. Life simply follows the rules. And, empirically, it has been shown that Bob's entropy consequenses are not true.

 

Yes, this is precisely the point 2Lot objectors fail to realize. Local decrease in entropy is always perfectly possible as long as there is some kind of engine that works to achieve that local decrease at the expense of greater entropy elsewhere . In the case of life, the extra entropy ultimately is dissapated into the environment around the living organism.

Evolution is no exception; the "order" accomplished by evolution is accompanied by increased disorder elsewhere. So evolution is possible.

Once could even argue that life itself is thermodynamically favored just because it increases the amount of entropy elsewhere faster than if life were not there.

 

Bob

What EXACTLY does entropy prohibit with regard to evolution? If you look at my last post you will see where I went back several pages to pull quotes from you about what you said at that time that entropy prevents. I have since showed you where these things have actually happened.

So I ask again. Specifically, what about evolution is prevented by entropy and how?

 

What alledged step in the evolution of life does entropy prevent?

You previous quotes on previous pages indicated that it was "new information." Yet I have shown you several lines of evidence that indicates new "information" being formed and used.