Impossible evolutionary steps?

Are you saying that Paul of Eugene is a fake, or UTEOTW, or both of them?

Mike

 

Phillip,

What do you mean by the word "fake"? As I read your post, it sounds to be as though you are questioning Paul's profession to be a Christian, and if you are doing that on this message board, you are way over the line.

As for the second law of thermodynamics, there is absolutely nothing about it that is in not in agreement with the theory of evolution. No evolutionist would even begin to suggest that evolution is nothing but a series of chance events resulting in increased complexity. The basic teaching of evolution is that the process of natural selection favors reproduction by those organisms whose chance mutations give them an advantage in adapting to their environment. Without natural selection one does not have evolution but short lived chaos. With natural selection, however, one does have evolution, adaptation, survival—and creased complexity when increased complexity has a selective advantage.

 

No, he is not over the line. I cannot find anything in the forum rules that prevent someone from questioning whether or not someone is a Christian.

Indeed, we have to do this as a matter of urgency. I once went to a church in Iran where they had "enquirers" who were fake, and sometimes even fake Christians. One of these tipped off a gang of thugs who came into the pastor's house during a Bible study and killed him. This pastor might still be alive today if we had been more vigilant in identifying fakes.

It's easy for fake Christians to get onto a board like this. All you have to do is fill in the registration and give the name of a local church and you are in. Nobody will ask the pastor for a recommendation, and in most cases it would be impossible to do so because most people register with pseudonyms.

Mike

 

"Evolution by definition is most certainly not creation. It is foolish, false, and blasphemous to suggest otherwise."

[sarcasm]Suggesting that a human grows from a fertilized egg into adulthood by natural means is not the same as God creating him. We are all God's cretions. It is foolish, false, and blasphemous to suggest that a human produced by growth through natural means could be considered a creation of God.[/sarcasm]

"Evolution violates each of these statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a law which Albert Einstein called..."

No one at all is doubting whether the 2LOT is valid. What is in doubt are you assertions about it.

You claim that evolution violoates "that in all natural processes there is an increase in unavailable energy." Now explain to us just how it violates this. Your assertion. Your burden of proof.

You claim that evolution violoates "that in all natural processes there is an increase in disorder." Now explain to us just how it violates this. Your assertion. Your burden of proof. And do so in the framework of Boltzmann's work on statistical entropy and not in the framework of a layman's definition of order and disorder. As has been explained to you multiple times by now, the disorder of a statistical treatment of entropy is simple in the arrangement of the molecules.

You claim that evolution violoates "that in all natural processes there is a loss of information." Now explain to us just how it violates this. Your assertion. Your burden of proof. And your first step will by necessity to do something which no other physicist has done. You must make information a part of thermodynamic entropy because at this point in time they are considered to be diffeent subjects. The entropy of information theory is not a part of the second law of thermodynamics!

But all this has been explained to you before. You never even make an attempt to defend your reasoning. You merely wait until the refutation gets a little stale or rolls off to a previous page and then assert the same thing again.

There has been nothing yrt from any of the YEers to show how the 2LOT really is concerned with order on a macro scale. There has been nothing yrt from any of the YEers to show how the 2LOT really is concerned with information. There has been nothing yrt from any of the YEers to show how the 2LOT prevents any of the mechanisms of evolution. You have been long on the assertions but short on the details.

In my opinion, I think you must know that you are making a false assertion at some level. YOu make no attempts to defend your statements. You make no attempts to spell out any actual consequences. You make no attempts to even show where the refutations of your position are wrong. You merely make the same assertions over and over. I think that if you really thought that you had found a problem you would be eager to amswer such questions. As it is, I think you just feel the need to repeat the same thing over and over because you realize that you have nothing concrete to go on.

Now... Since you again raise the issue of "information" and "order" I will again post concrete examples of evolution doing what you say cannot be done. Here, again, are 21 quick examples of evolution doing what you assert it cannot. That should leave no room for haggling. A few minutes at somewhere like PubMed should let you see that this is just the tip of the iceberg, too.

"Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila," Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, Hartl DL, Nature. 1998 Dec 10;396(6711):572-5.

"Adaptive evolution after gene duplication," Hughes AL, Trends Genetics, 2002 Sep.18(9):433-4.

"Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example," Zhang J, Webb DM, Podlaha O, Genetics. 2002 Dec;162(4):1825-35.

"Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis," Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM, Nature 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9.

"Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution," John M. Logsdon Jr. and W. Ford Doolittle, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA,Vol. 94, pp. 3485-3487, April 1997.

DeVries, A. L. & Wohlschlag, D. E. (1969) Science 163, 1073-1075.

"A carrot leucine-rich-repeat protein that inhibits ice recrystallization," Worrall D, Elias L, Ashford D, Smallwood M, Sidebottom C, Lillford P, Telford J, Holt C, Bowles D, Science. 1998 Oct 2;282(5386):115-7.

"Recruitment of a double bond isomerase to serve as a reductive dehalogenase during biodegradation of pentachlorophenol," Anandarajah K, Kiefer PM Jr, Donohoe BS, Copley SD, Biochemistry 2000 May 9;39(18):5303-11.

"The Tre2 (USP6) oncogene is a hominoid-specific gene," Paulding CA, Ruvolo M, Haber DA, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U S A 2003 Mar 4;100(5):2507-11.

"The human genome contains many types of chimeric retrogenes generated through in vivo RNA recombination," Anton Buzdin*, Elena Gogvadze, Elena Kovalskaya, Pavel Volchkov, Svetlana Ustyugova, Anna Illarionova, Alexey Fushan, Tatiana Vinogradova and Eugene Sverdlov, Nucleic Acids Research, 2003, Vol. 31, No. 15 4385-4390.

"The narrow sheath Duplicate Genes: Sectors of Dual Aneuploidy Reveal Ancestrally Conserved Gene Functions During Maize Leaf Development," Michael J. Scanlona, K. David Chenb, and Calvin C. McKnight, IV, Genetics, Vol. 155, 1379-1389, July 2000.

"The maize duplicate genes narrow sheath1 and narrow sheath2 encode a conserved homeobox gene function in a lateral domain of shoot apical meristems," Judith Nardmann1, Jiabing Ji, Wolfgang Werr, and Michael J. Scanlon, Development 131, 2827-2839 (2004).

Copley, S. D. (2000). “Evolution of a metabolic pathway for degradation of a toxic xenobiotic: the patchwork approach.” Trends Biochem Sci 25(6): 261-265.

Harding, M. M., Anderberg, P. I. and Haymet, A. D. (2003). “‘Antifreeze’ glycoproteins from polar fish.” Eur J Biochem 270(7): 1381-1392.

Johnson, G. R., Jain, R. K. and Spain, J. C. (2002). “Origins of the 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway.” J Bacteriol 184(15): 4219-4232.

Long, M., Betran, E., Thornton, K. and Wang, W. (2003). “The origin of new genes: glimpses from the young and old.” Nat Rev Genet 4(11): 865-875.

Nurminsky, D., Aguiar, D. D., Bustamante, C. D. and Hartl, D. L. (2001). “Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.” Science 291(5501): 128-130.

Patthy, L. (2003). “Modular assembly of genes and the evolution of new functions.” Genetica 118(2-3): 217-231.

Prijambada I. D., Negoro S., Yomo T., Urabe I. (1995). “Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.” Appl Environ Microbiol. 61(5):2020-2.

Ranz, J. M., Ponce, A. R., Hartl, D. L. and Nurminsky, D. (2003). “Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme.” Genetica 118(2-3): 233-244.

Seffernick, J. L. and Wackett, L. P. (2001). “Rapid evolution of bacterial catabolic enzymes: a case study with atrazine chlorohydrolase.” Biochemistry 40(43): 12747-12753.

 

You won't get anywhere by posting the same list twice. I have posted the link to my book many times and you still haven't read it.

Mike

 

If anyone wishes to assert that evolution cannot produce new information or new order (We are still in need of the YEers to define just what they mean by those terms) then they must address specific instances of evolution producing just those sorts of things.

The point is well made that YEers will proclaim that evolution cannot do things when they have not even examined evidence to the contrary to see if it is true. They will proclaim that there is no evidence for evolution when they will also admit to not even knowing how to pronounce the evidence.

You and the others seem to think that you can make points by repeatedly posting the same false assertions which are never backed up or defended. You should not be surprised that when you repeat a false assertion that I repeat the data that refutes the asertion. I am supposing at this point that you and the others never have any intention of tying yourself down to anything specific. You must be content to post the same thing over and over without regard for providing support or considering data that contradicts your claims.

As far as your book... You really need to show that you can make a decent argument before I waste time on such a book. I am guessing that your thermo appendix is not much different than your posts here. A few statements (maybe even a lot) about real thermodynamics with a few assertions that evolution violates this without ever tying the two together factually. It seems to be what you are content to do here. You cannot produce a specific mechaims of evolution that is prevented and how and you even waffle back and forth as needed as to whether it is abiogenesis or the whole process that is prevented. You repeat this as a mantra yet you complain when the same assertion is refuted by the same data more than once. You have your head so far in the ground that you refuse to even examine the data. I think that the real reason that you will not examine it is because you know that it contradicts you. If you don't look at it, then you have deluded yourself that you can honestly continue to make the same false assertions.

 

I'm your huckleberry.

I have addressed the things you have posted. None of them are sufficient to prove anything to a reasonably critical person. The only people that could be impressed by the examples you have given are those who are frightened away by the use of big technical terms or do not notice that assumptions, not observations, provide the critical foundations... or someone with a rigid predisposed bias to believe in evolution in spite of the genuine weakness of its proofs.

 

That is categorically false. If the assumption of naturalism is true then God deserves no glory whatsoever for creation.... He was not necessary to accomplish it. It would be on par with giving a sports reporter credit for the Patriots SB win.

Is there glory in making unsubtantiated assertions about why He could not have used the method that His Word tells us He did?

His Word BTW is much more concrete in what it says than the evidence is. You have frequently claimed the fossil record as proof for evolution.

I have countered that this is invalid as a proof because the theory is used as a guide for interpretting the data. This morning I read a quote from an evolutionist paleontologist that basically said the same thing.

Evolution is built on assumptions, not facts.

There is evidence... that isn't the debate though. It is the interpretation of the evidence that is at issue.

As of now, "science" isn't about the pursuit of facts to their conclusion or about finding the truth concerning origins... it is about preserving the assumption of naturalism.

The most simple, direct answer for something with the appearance of design is intelligence. But this vein of inquiry is not allowable to the academic science establishment.

The premise requiring pure naturalism for science is completely subjective and philosophical.

Once that premise is dispensed with, science can then truly follow the facts wherever they lead.

Currently, only answers that fit the evolutionary framework are allowed. This bias is cited by folks like you as evidence for evolution.

A better question is if you will ever cite real evidence of these mechanisms ever giving rise to a new species or new functional systems.

I acknowledge being a layman. But I am neither ignorant nor stupid. If I can see how your "proofs" are critically dependent on unproven assumptions, it would seem that you could.

 

I found an interesting definition of an evolutionist in Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. According to this definition an evolutionist is one who believes in the doctrine of evolution; doctrine, not theory, not fact.

 

"I'm your huckleberry.

I have addressed the things you have posted. None of them are sufficient to prove anything to a reasonably critical person. The only people that could be impressed by the examples you have given are those who are frightened away by the use of big technical terms or do not notice that assumptions, not observations, provide the critical foundations... or someone with a rigid predisposed bias to believe in evolution in spite of the genuine weakness of its proofs."

Several of the items are OBSERVED. Items that were either observed in the lab or in the wild. You still do not accept them. You will never accept any evidence for new information no matter how convincing. I cannot even get a definition for information or an example of what you would consider new information.

And it is not a matter of impressing people with "big technical terms." Those are the terms of the subject matter. If you fail to understand the terminology, how can you presume to be making an intelligent argument? Old Regular posted above how there was no evidence for evolution. When I listed some of the areas his response was that he did not even know how to pronounce them! How can someone in good conscience say there is no evidence when he is so unfamilar with the evidence that he cannot even pronounce it!

[ February 07, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

Kind of like the question I asked:

If it turns out that something other than evolution was the real means of creation, will that mean that evolution wasn't truly scientific after all?

Science should be about determining the truth of a matter. The evidence should be followed in every possible direction. Evolution commands that scientists put on blinders that can never allow them to consider the evidence for design. They must force fit everything they find into a purely naturalistic explanation.

"Science" has sadly become a promotion of a philosophically biased worldview instead of a pursuit of truth.

 

So you still cannot tell us anything that thermodynamic entropy actually prevents?

"I found an interesting definition of an evolutionist in Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. According to this definition an evolutionist is one who believes in the doctrine of evolution; doctrine, not theory, not fact."

Better go back to your dictionary and look up doctrine.

"something that is taught"

"a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge"

 

"I still say it is BAD SCIENCE to know in your heart that an omnipotent God exists and leave THAT variable out of the creation theories.

For the seventh time, nobody seems to want to address this."

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2714/11.html#000159

 

Phillip,

This objection of yours has been proven over and over and over again on this message board to be a stale bologna sandwich. Good science, by definition, leaves out all supernatural variables, including God, Genesis 1 – 11 and other variable that are totally irrelevant to science. Science does not say that there is no God or than the creation stories in the Bible are not true; science simply ignores these subjects as being irrelevant to itself. Those who try to force God and the creation stories from the Bible into science are in reality modifying religion rather than modifying science.

 

Please cite the example of one species evolving into another in a lab or in the wild.

I have seen you cite a couple of types of things. One, explanations of what has been found in nature. These explanations are neither exclusive nor supported through lab re-creation. Two, you have cited lab experiments where someone specifically manipulates genes to get flies to mutate. The problem is two fold. One, it takes intelligence to make it happen. Two, the conditions are not found naturally.

I accept the facts but not the conclusions. I don't think you are a liar or even insincere. I think you have bought into a false scheme based on a demonstrably false and wholly unbiblical premise.

We will know when I actually see some.

I would consider new information something that independently arose in the genetic code from a source other than the parents that resulted in a novel and beneficial development. This change must result in greater genetic complexity. A simple lateral change will not suffice and neither will a net loss of information.

Retrovirus inserts leave a change. They do not make the organism more complex in the sense of greater genetic adaptability... which would be necessary for natural selection to advance evolution.

However this really only gets you half the way. You must also show that many of these developments can and do occur in such a way as to give rise to new, useful systems or to changes in species.

I would actually point back to you on this contention however. I think that the existence of alternative explanations would be desirable for a Christian truly open-minded about this issue. I really don't think you consider creationists' arguments with an open mind.

If a creationist argument takes on too much detail regarding how it possibly happened, you dismiss it for not comparing well to explanations given by evolutionists. If it lacks detail, you dismiss it for not having proof.

It is you that has predetermined to accept naturalism over intelligence or direct creation.

I am not asking you to give up science... I am asking you to give up naturalism as a premise.

I have tried to reconcile evolution with the Bible in the past. It doesn't work. I see some valid arguments for an old universe... but not conclusive arguments by any stretch.

I appreciate your efforts and input. You are not being ignored... the arguments simply aren't as strong as you seem to think they are.

 

Natural explanations are not always correct explanations, and although the supernatural have no place in science, they do have a place in everyday reality. There are several possible natural explanations of the empty tomb, but there is also a supernatural explanation. When one considers the empty tomb from the point of view of science, the resurrection is an impossibility; but when one considers the empty tomb from the point of view of history, the scientific explanations become impossibilities.

 

Says who? This is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one. Science should be about following the evidence whereever it leads. If the evidence requires a creator who provided the intelligence and information necessary then so be it. In fact, intelligence is a valid scientific approach since its effects, unlike those proposed for evolution, can actually be observed.

Science and evolution are not equal. If evolution turns out to be false as I am confident it will then it was never truly scientific. In fact, this will expose its flawed philosophical premise as well as the abuse of evidence in trying to prove it.

However, evolution does attempt to explain nature absent God. Ignoring God is neither scientific nor reasonable... it is simply proof of a naturalistic bias.

It is also inane to suggest that the Bible and the account of Genesis 1-11 has no relevance to science if evidence can be found to support it or if the evidence can be interpretted to support it.

Ignoring God is no more scientific than referencing Him. Both are philosophical choices.

That isn't what we are doing. We are saying that God provided an outline for how He created the universe and "true" explanations will conform to that outline. Evolution does not. It conforms to anti(instead of)-God naturalism.

BTW, when the Bible says that it had not rained prior to Noah's flood... Was that literal or allegorical? OTOH, the proper question is "Was it true or false" since there is no allegorical explanation for such a blunt statement.

 

I believe that Christians should tell the truth and accurately represent the facts whether they like them or not. Case in point:

I have read hundreds upon hundreds of post in the science vs. the Bible threads, and I have not come across a single one of them that even so much as suggests that any part of Genesis should be interpreted as an allegory. And this objection has been posted over and over and over again, but some individuals on this message board apparently care more about "winning" a debate than they do about telling the truth and accurately representing the facts. Perhaps they have caught this malady from the folks at the ICR, but regardless of where they picked it up, they need to get rid of it. Christians need to tell the truth. No responsible person on this message board would say that Genesis 1 – 11 should be interpreted allegorically.

 

Neither philosophy nor religion belongs to the discipline of science! If you don’t like science, perhaps you should invent your own disciple and not falsely call it science like the folks at the ICR do.