Impossible evolutionary steps?

The text below shows the danger of the common creationist practice of quote mining. Some of the links may no longer be current as they were from the Internet of four years ago:

1. Original Version? (Grandparent)

>>>>>In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon
Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala
in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce
their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the
prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American
colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common
attitude among archaeologists towards it, as
follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put
it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is
completely out of date we just drop it. Few
archaeologists who have concerned themselves with
absolute chronology are innocent of having
sometimes applied this method. . ."(11)<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The above version is from:

http://lide.pruvodce.cz/rix/ce/tc14.htm

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

2. Intermediate Version (daughter). This version omits
the connection to Egyptian history.

>>>>>Even more astonishing is this cynical statement made
at a symposium of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden,
in 1969: If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in
the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we
put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of
date,' we just drop it (Pensee , Winter 1973, p.44).<<<<<<

The above version is from:

http://www.rae.org/ch04tud.html


----------------------------------------------------------
3. Most Recent Version: (grand-daughter). Since the link
to Egypt was lost in the previous quote, the web site using
the quote below incorrectly guessed that evolution was
involved.

"If a C-14 date supports our [evolutionary] theories,
we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely
contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is
completely `out of date,' we just drop it."

—*Pensee,3(1):44.

The above version is from:


http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/06dat5.htm


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

The Perils of Copying - A Monk's Story
A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying copies, not the original books. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there was an error introduced in the intermediate copies, that error would be continued in succeeding copies. The head monk says "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar, and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong. "The word is celebrate," says the old monk.

 

I should add that if you follow the last link referenced above, the text has been corrected. Apparently the website became aware of their error in quote mining and corrected it. The use of the quote is still considerably in error because the original quote, if accurate, had to to with the prehistory of Egypt and nothing at all to do with anything involving evolution. It is wrong even to assume, as the website did, that the persons quoted are evolutionists - there is some chance that they may not be evolutionists since the early beginnings of Egypt are not at all related to the study of evolution.

It is amusing that the creationist writer makes the mistake of assuming that C-14 dating and the ancient history of Egypt are somehow related to evolution. The time span under discussion is within the last 5,000 years and therefore is not a issue of disagreement between fundamentalists and mainstream science to my knowledge. The fact that somehow the original quote were brought into the discussion of evolution says a great deal about the lack of competence of creationists.

[ January 30, 2005, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Benfranklin403 ]

 

Ben----ummmmmmmm----I love ya and all---but could you "simplify" your above statement??

 

"You can talk to them if you want. They are easy enough to find."

The above is from Mike in regard to his comment that if creationists present false information we should discuss it with them. Actually I have done that several times. There is a chemist from Australia who works for Answers in Genesis. His name is Jonathan Sarfati. He often made the claim that the second law of thermodynamics was a problem for evolution. Having had several courses in thermoydynamics myself, I decided to confront him on that point. He tried to deflect my criticism by referring to some other author whom he claimed has shown that there was a conflict. When I read the other author, the other author made no such claim. When I pointed that out to Sarfati, he insisted that the claim was there in the other writer's work. When I disagreed with his assessment and asked him to point out in detail the text in the other writer's work that showed the conflict, he simply refused to continue the discussion.

 

"The specifics of entropy are getting off the subject and I am not the scientist to discuss this, but I do know scientists personally who have used the second law of thermodynamics. Such a minor decrease in entropy as shown by water certainly does not open the gateway for something as complex as life."

-- Phillip
...............................................

The above is typical of what usually happens when a creationist is pressed hard on the subject of entropy. They prefer to change the subject rather than admit that the second law of thermodynamics poses no problem for evolution. Phillip was more honest than most in at least admitting that water freezing to ice goes to a lower state of entropy. But the fact is that even one instance of showing that some object goes to a lower state of entropy is enough to invalidate the common creationist argument. Mike from England, take note. Surely Mike, with your background in chemical engineering, you don't want to continue in a lost cause, that is, you should not want to continue to maintain the fiction that somehow there is a conflict between the second law and evolution. I see that there are some very capable scientific types here arguing for evolution. Listen to them at least when they make the scientific arguments.

 

There certainly is a conflict between the second law of thermodynamics and evolution, and it's got nothing to do with the freezing of water. You need to read my book "Impossible Theology: The Christian Evolutionist Dilemma". The Laws of Thermodynamics are described in Appendix 3.

http://www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/impossible_theology.htm#laws_of_thermodynamics

Mike

 

You have yet been able to do anything other than assert a problem. No specific reasons it is a problem. So specific consequences. Just assertions. I have asked repeatedly for you to give me one mechanism of evolution that is prevented by thermodynamic entropy and the silence has been deafening.

 

"There certainly is a conflict between the second law of thermodynamics and evolution, and it's got nothing to do with the freezing of water. You need to read my book "Impossible Theology: The Christian Evolutionist Dilemma". The Laws of Thermodynamics are described in Appendix 3."

Mike, I am not going to buy your book. Since this is a bit of a debate, you should be willing to explain your ideas here.

 

Actually, I am more interested in hearing what the creationists have got to say about this book. I'm not expecting evolutionists to believe it, for reasons I have explained in Appendix 1 - The Philosophy of Evolution.

http://www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/impossible_theology.htm#philosophy_of_evolution

Mike

 

"Ben----ummmmmmmm----I love ya and all---but could you "simplify" your above statement??"

If you mean that it was not well written, I agree. It could have been less redundant. But if there is something you don't understand, I am puzzled and ask that you specify what is unclear.

 

Life is an example of increase in corruption and the unchecked action of life is part of the consequence of the fall.

Think thorns and thistles, tares among the wheat, moths as corruptors, all mentioned in scripture!

Disease and rot and spoilage are all examples of increased entropy . . . all due to proliferating life!

Hence, the argument that entropy somehow forbids evolution of life is ludicrous.

 

With all of this in mind, the idea that things have gotten genetically "better" for millions of years as evolution gave rise to ever more superior creatures... is also ludicrous.

 

OK, you say evolution is "ludicrous", I say its not "ludicrous", and we've had contrasting assertions.

Now go ahead and tell me which of these stages is unreasonable:

a) Creatures of a given species reach a limit and wind up competing with each other for successful reproduction

b) Mutations occur in the genome of a random nature

c) Many of them have a harmful affect on the ability to reproduce and the unfortunate recipients of such mutations, therefore, reproduce less - and over the generations those mutations get taken out by that process.

d) Once in a while a mutation has a beneficial affect on reproduction and over the generations those mutations get established in the population, exactly because they help the reproduction.

e) Beneficial mutations therefore accumulate over time and given enough time, an indefinate number of them can accumulate.

Go ahead, spell out just why and where the laws of thermodynamics mean this sequence cannot happen. Of course, they don't, anywhere along the line . . . and therefore evolution is perfectly possible.

 

It goes wrong much earlier. First you need things called "creatures".

Mike

 

But evolution is the study of how these creatures change with time. Evolution is what we are talking about. Evolution is what you have asserted is prevented by thermodynamics.

But now you must back your way out of that, seeing as how you still cannot tell what about evolution is prevented by thermodynamics, and you must attempt to change the subject to abiogenesis.

Now, feel free at this point to admit that evolution is not prevented by thermo and go start a new thread about "Impossible Abiogenesis Steps" and there you can discuss just what steps of abiogenesis you feel are not possible because of thermodynamics.

Now, when you do ( ) I will first off point out to you that you are dealing with believers here so getting that first life going should not be considered a problem. If God wants it, God can get it. The next thing I will do is start pointing out some of the resent research into this area. You are a chemical engineer so you should have at least passing knowledge of the roles that catalysts and stabilizing agents can have in reactions. I will be pointing out how very common materials on earth have been found to have such effects on pre-biotic chemicals. I will be pointing out that making organic chemicals does not seem so hard since we find them coming from space. I will also need to ask about your particular definition of life. (Especially after the games played over defining open, closed and isolated. You seemed to be headed for a fallacy of equivocation there before you dropped it.) Is a virus life? A prion? I will also be asking, likely fruitlessly, about which specific steps of abiogenesis you think cannot happen due to thermodynamics.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your last statement is an admission that nothing in evolution is prevented by entropy and that you are now changing your assertion to be that abiogenesis is prevented by entropy. Right?

 

I have always thought that chemical evolution (otherwise known as abiogenesis) is part of evolution, and it forms the basis of the later stages of evolution. If you can't have chemical evolution, you can't have the rest of evolution. It's like building a house on sand.

Thermodynamics is not needed to disprove the later stages of evolution. All you need is the simple logic that you don't make complex structures by continually smashing things up, which is what happens in a system that depends on mutations.

I notice that evolutionists are dropping the term "chemical evolution" because it's the part they have the most difficulty with, and they find it embarrassing. So they call it abiogenesis to try and separate it off as an entirely different subject.

Mike

 

Just to be sure since you did not answer directly. You are dropping your criticism that it is evolution that is prevented by entropy and you are now changing that to abiogenesis. I am not missing something here.

"I have always thought that chemical evolution (otherwise known as abiogenesis) is part of evolution, and it forms the basis of the later stages of evolution."

Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency within a population with time.

That has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

You must make an attempt to lump them because you have no means to support your original assertion. So you now change your original assertion and hope no one notices. It is just like the attempt to lump biology and geology and astronomy and any other science that YEers do not like the results of as "evolution." Just because you assert it does not make it true.

"Thermodynamics is not needed to disprove the later stages of evolution. All you need is the simple logic that you don't make complex structures by continually smashing things up, which is what happens in a system that depends on mutations."

Unsubstantiated assertion.

I can give you plenty of examples of where such "smashing things up" has lead to improvements in the organism including new traits and new metabolic pathways.

I guess I will here have to ask a modified version of my standard question. Just what part of abiogenesis do you think is prevented by entropy?

 

Mike won't discuss thermodynamics other than making vague assertions without supporting detail. To go into detail Mike would have to face the fact that he is mistaken and he is loath to give up any ground to evolution. So he wants to change the subject, which is the usual reaction of creationists when pressed on their mistaken claim regarding the second law of thermodynamics. Stop evading the issue, Mike.

 

I am not dropping anything. I have always referred to evolution in a fairly broad sense, and if we set aside the question of evolution of languages and political systems, which is something entirely different, I am using the definition from Futuyma that appears in Talk-Origins:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

When I talk about evolution, I mean the whole thing, from the supposed big bang to the development of humans. So we have cosmic evolution, chemical evolution and then biological evolution. The only bit I can believe in is biological micro-evolution, which we see all the time because the living cell has the capacity to create variations within a species without any need for mutations. So to summarise it:

* I don't believe in cosmic evolution.
* I don't believe in chemical evolution.
* I don't believe in biological macro-evolution.

Now, regarding thermodynamics, it prevents chemical evolution because of the energy requirements for the formation of the complex molecules of life from ordinary chemicals. It also prevents biological macro-evolution because chemical change tends to work in the direction of continual destruction. Things change from one form to another at the convenience of thermodynamics, not at the convenience of something that wants to live.

I don't remember saying that entropy prevents evolution, although in certain contexts it represents disorder. It is the process of energy distribution that causes the real damage, especially the distribution of chemical energy. But you wouldn't know that, would you, because you haven't read my Appendix on "The Laws of Thermodynamics". Just to make it easy, I'll give you the link again.

www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/impossible_theology.htm#laws_of_thermodynamics

Mike

 

That's ridiculous, I've written a book with a whole lot of equations and diagrams, but you haven't bothered to look at it. The reason for writing all this stuff in a book is so that I only have to write it once and I don't have to continually repeat the same complex arguments in this forum, and that forum, and the other forum, and the other forum, and the other forum...