Impossible evolutionary steps?

So, again, going by your own defintion above, it is NOT biological evolution to which you are objecting based on thermo. It is abiogenesis. You may roll it into one ball of wax, but that is not how it works.

I general evolution is change. Biological evolution is something specific. Look again at the defintion YOU posted.

"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."

Even by the definition of biological evolution that you propose, you can find no fault in the theory from a thermodynamic viewpoint. You must roll it into a larger ball of wax via a bit of equivocation before you can ever get to the the part to which you actually object.

And even then you must ignore the data that shows the pre-biotic molecules are fairly simple to form and that common materials can lead to the formation of useful molecules.

"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."

I think that continually hawking your book violates that advertising rules of the board. Furthermore, why should I want to send money to someone when you seem to be unable to even offer a coherent watered down version in pages and pages of text. You are still at the point of objecting to nebulous things for nebulous reasons.

 

The fault is that you can't go on for very long, expecting to get negative values of delta G in a sequence of reactions, unless you have a very clever chemist who can find all the right coupling agents.

It's a way of filtering the audience, rather like Jesus used to do after the Pharisees had denounced him as an agent of the Devil. After that he spoke in parables so that only those who were really interested would hear what he had to say.

Mike

 

Do you have any Scriptural evidence for the above statements?

 

Didn't you notice, this is not my definition at all, and I am not rolling a ball of wax, because I got this from the Talk.Origins website where the high priests of evolution hand out their instructions to other evolutionists about how to argue against creationists. I even gave a link to their website but you appear to have missed it.

I can't win, can I? If I say black is black, you will say it is white. If I say black is white, you will say it is black. I can't even give an evolutionist definition of evolution without you finding something to complain about.

Mike

[ February 01, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Mike Gascoigne ]

 

Maybe some people recognize that once you settle on a definition for evolution it becomes a fixed target... sitting duck actually.

 

(duplicate message - moderator please delete)

 

That's right, it's a fixed target, and thermodynamics affects the whole thing. At each stage the energy system has to come first, whether it's photosynthesis in plants or the digestive system in animals. But the worst problems occur at the beginning because it's all supposed to be driven by energy from the Sun, but first you need something that is capable of photosynthesis in a world where there are no plants.

Mike

 

Mike, there are numerous authors of thermodynamics textbooks who diagree with you about it being a problem for evolution. Are the three experts wrong who give their views on the following web site? One of them, Alberty, is practically a legend in the world of thermodynamics. All have multiple professional publications in thermodynamics. Here is the site:

http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm

 

Do you have any Scriptural evidence for the above statements? </font>[/QUOTE]This is a bit off topic, but the answer is in 2 Peter 2:4 "...God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell...".

Also we have Isaiah 14:12 "How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star [Lucifer in KJAV] son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

We don't know everything about this, or why the serpent was on the earth when other fallen angels were in hell, but we know that there must have been an angelic rebellion before the fall, because God's creation was good, and he did not create the serpent in a fallen state. Hell was therefore needed as a destination for the rebellious angels, even before the fall of man.

Mike

 

Ben,

I know already that there are lots of creationists who try to talk about thermodynamics, but they don't know very much, and it's easy to fire a few shots at them. But what does this prove? It doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already. I am actually trying to reach out to the creationists here just as much as the evolutionists.

Bob Alberty says that Thompson and Harrub have got some of their definitions wrong.

Don Haynie is a bit more generous and says that it's a complex subject, and he criticises Holloway for submitting a question that was short on definitions. Then he says there are many evolutionists who don't understand the second law.

Ken Dill says that the second law does not prohibit evolution, but instead of attempting to prove his case, he knocks over a few straw-men, for example "Entropy does not distinguish living from nonliving systems".

He is the only one who mentions chemical energy, otherwise known as "free energy" and he knocks over another straw-man "You can't distinguish a rock from an earthworm on the basis of its free energy". He totally disregards the energy problems that would be encountered in all the sequential reactions that would be needed to turn a rock into an earthworm, if it was possible.

Mike

 

"It's a way of filtering the audience, rather like Jesus used to ..."

Filtering the audience by not presenting a viable case in public? Sounds more like you would rather only preach ot the choir.

"Didn't you notice, this is not my definition at all, and I am not rolling a ball of wax, because I got this from the Talk.Origins website where the high priests of evolution hand out their instructions to other evolutionists about how to argue against creationists. I even gave a link to their website but you appear to have missed it.

I can't win, can I? If I say black is black, you will say it is white. If I say black is white, you will say it is black. I can't even give an evolutionist definition of evolution without you finding something to complain about."

Nope. You copy his defintion for us and then completely ignore it. He tells you what biological evolution is yet you fall back on a much broader definition where evolution is simply change with time. This is obviously because you have no actual objections to actual biological evolution based on thermodynamics. So you cast a wider net.

"That's right, it's a fixed target, and thermodynamics affects the whole thing. At each stage the energy system has to come first, whether it's photosynthesis in plants or the digestive system in animals. But the worst problems occur at the beginning because it's all supposed to be driven by energy from the Sun, but first you need something that is capable of photosynthesis in a world where there are no plants."

Nice strawman. I don't think that most people in the field of abiogenesis think that the first life took energy from the sun.

 

No, I'm just trying to find an honest evolutionist.

No, I haven't cast any wider net. First you have chopped off part of the definition, hoping that nobody will notice, then you have suggested that I added it, when in fact it it was there in the first place. Here is the complete definition from Talk.Origins, and I have highlighted in bold characters the part that you chopped off. This is what you call the "broader definition" that I have supposedly fallen back on, the "wider net" that I have supposedly cast and the "larger ball of wax" that I have supposedly rolled up.

"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."

Here again is the link to Talk.Origins so you can check it for yourself.

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

While misrepresenting me in this way, you appear to have forgotten that, not very long ago, you were denouncing creationist researchers as liars.

Mike

 

I chopped it off because it was not part of the definition of biological evolution that you were quoting. The previous sentence was merely talking about evolution in general as change in general. The following then defing biological evolution specifically.

You are the one who is giving the definition and then falling back on a different definition because the real one, even as you yourself quote it, is too narrow for the case you are somewhat attempting to make.

Continue by looking at the other two definitions given on the page YOU reference. "Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. " and "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

You have referenced this site as your definition and yet you do not accept any of the definitions as your working definition. Biological evolution is spelled out for you but you fall back on the general statement of evolution as change knowing full well that this is not what is being defined as biological evolution.

"First you have chopped off part of the definition, hoping that nobody will notice, then you have suggested that I added it, when in fact it it was there in the first place."

There is a dishonest charge. Just where did I suggest that you added that yourself? I said that you ignored the definition that you posted.

This would have been silly for me to do as a dishonest tactic with your original quote sitting a few inches above for all the readers.

"No, I'm just trying to find an honest evolutionist."

Where have I not been honest? This is a baseless and offensive charge.

"I don't remember saying that entropy prevents evolution, although in certain contexts it represents disorder."

You didn't?

Do I need to keep going through your posts on this thread? You have repeated over and over that the whole process is not possible because of thermodynamics. But now when continuously pressed, you change your statement and say that ti is abiogenesis that is prevented. This only after being badgered for pages by me and others to demonstrate that one mechanism of evolution is not possible. Don't you remember Paul asking

It was at this point that you gave up on denying the whole process. You even now try and deny that you ever even said that it was the whole process. You now fall back to a different position. You say that it is abiogenesis that is prevented and claim that you "don't remember" ever claiming different.

But, even at that, you only give us an argument from incredulty. Nothing hard. Nothing concrete. Nothing specific. It is in keeping with the rest of the thread, though.

 

I wasn't making any attempt to quote a definition of biological evolution. It just happens to be there as part of the general definition. But you must hang on to this ridiculous fantasy that I have started with biological evolution, so that you can falsely claim that I have extended it to something else.

Mike

 

I quote you above from this thread where you repeatedly say it is the "whole process." You falsely deny your own statements.

"I wasn't making any attempt to quote a definition of biological evolution."

No. Then why did you say "I am using the definition from Futuyma that appears in Talk-Origins."

"It just happens to be there as part of the general definition."

You need to read your own quote again. The general concept and the specifics of biological evolution is a simple matter of reading comprehension. Did you misread your own quote or misrepresent your own quote?

"But you must hang on to this ridiculous fantasy that I have started with biological evolution, so that you can falsely claim that I have extended it to something else."

False accusation. I spell out above where you say yourself that it is the "whole process" over and over until it becomes clear that you have no objections to biological evolution so you try to deftly change the subject to abiogenesis and claim that you were never talking about biological evolution, just change in general. You even tried to hedge your bets by only saying that you "don't remember."

 

I have always pursued the creation/evolution debate on the basis of the general definition of evolution that includes the formation of life from non-life and I have the evidence to prove it.

I wrote my book before I came to this forum and anyone who reads it will realise that, in the discussion of thermodynamics, I am primarily concerned with the early stages of evolution.

But I'm not supposed to mention my book, am I, because then I will be accused of advertising.

Mike

 

So Mike, are you saying that evolution after life is started is not a problem for thermodynamics but it is the origin of life that has the problem?

 

There has been nothing presented on this thread to show that evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That being said I will say again: trying to reason with one who believes evolution and, and therefore, denies Scripture, is as useful as shoveling manure against a tidal wave.

 

All of it is a problem. It takes a huge leap of the imagination to suppose that you can get from the first living cell to humans by continually smashing things up and hoping that a few bits will land in the right place (the thing that you call mutations and natural selection).

Now when we take thermodynamics into account there has to be another huge leap of the imagination. Have you ever seen a flowchart of metabolic pathways? It's like a huge plate of spaghetti with arrows pointing in all directions and each arrow represents a reaction that involves a loss of free energy. The cycle itself is complicated enough, and it makes you wonder how it was put together, but it's even more mind-boggling when you realise that each reaction has to be thermodynamically feasible, and the whole thing has to continue holding together while evolution progresses and new processes are added.

If you want to continue making huge leaps of the imagination, you can have your biological evolution if you want it, but it's not for me. I just want to be a scientist and not a fantasy-writer.

As for chemical evolution, nobody can even imagine it, and that's why some people try to drop the term altogether and give it a different name like "abiogenesis" or "origin of life". Don't call it evolution and hopefully everybody will forget about it.

Mike