Impossible evolutionary steps?

[UTEOTW]

"Lee Stroebel quotes a scientist as saying that it would fit into a fairly small box."

It is not an honest quote if that is the way he presents it.

The statement was made by Gee. He said that the fossil from 10 to 5 millions years ago would fit into a box. There have been additional fossils recovered from this period since then.

The bulk of the evolution of the humans took place in the last 5 million years and has a comparitively rich history.

"It may have happened or it might be that God has a purpose that He hasn't felt obliged to reveal to us yet.

Or, these things could have been the result of speciation from the originally created animals according to the genetic coding God wrote into them."

This is waht I mean about unsubstantiated speculation.

The atavisms, vestiges, gnetics and fossil record of the whales all point to the same thing. You have to speculate on something unfalsifiable and unsupportable to object.

"That is pure circular reasoning."

Evolution is the explanation for the observations. It is not circular.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
... if it is shown that evolution is not possible without some form of supernaturalism, then we defeat atheistic evolution.

Since no one on this board has ever supported atheistic evolution, that's a nonissue. As far as supernaturalism, IMO, nothing that comes from God is devoid of supernaturalism. This is true on a daily basis, in the most minute of events in our daily lives.

Obviously you have not been paying much attention to the posts of UTEOTW. He believes in supernatural actions, but he tends to believe that naturalism and proof of a naturalistic origin is required.

Atheistic evolution is NOT a non-issue if I wish to discuss it. I don't see anybody forcing you to the keyboard to discuss it.

... if it is shown that evolution is not possible period, then we show Young Earth, because billions of years are required for the evidence presented by the evolutionists.

Far from. If it is shown that evolution is not possible, it does not automatically support a young earth. It only shows that life did not undergo gradual change over time.

You got me here because I misworded my statement. I meant to say that if evolution is not possible then we CAN show Young Earth. Since evolution requires millions of years, if evolution did exist then it would be NECESSARY to have an OLD EARTH. Without evolution, it is not NECESSARY. It is only considered old by those scientists who interpret their observations as an "old earth".

As a YEC, we believe in God's omnipotence, that He can snap his fingers and make an on-going and functioning universe, complete with people, in 6 days

No problem. If that's how it happenned, feel free to post the evidence for such so it can be reviewed.

Loaded statement, you and I both know that proving something supernatural is much more difficult that proving something that occurred naturally. I show you the Word-Of-God as proof and you claim I am misinterpreting plain English, or you turn it into a fairy tale.

By the way, again, this thread is NOT about YEC, it just happens that several of us are YEC. The thread is about "evolution". Did you see me specify it as "theistic evolution" or "naturalistic evolution." Your problem is that you seem to have a problem with what we wish to discuss. There is an easy way to fix that.

Our argument is that the Bible just happens to be the ONLY credible witness for the beginning of the universe and the Earth, not the "evidence". This should be quite self-explanatory.

No one necessarily disagrees with that. What is disagreed with is the contextual intent of Genesis creation story. The fact that this is so should not cause Christians to loose sleep ot separate from each other, however. We disagree over the contextual intent of many scriptural accounts, such as revelation, the number of days and which day of the week Jesus died and rose, the literalness of the parables, the identity of the fourth person in the fire with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, etc etc.

To be honest, I think we spend way too much time discussing the literalness of Genesis, and an insufficient amount of time discussing what Genesis tells us about who God is, what He is, and why he made us. </font>[/QUOTE]We discuss ALL of those issues in threads, so what is the matter with discussing evolution and the literalness of Genesis. I am not questioning ANYBODY's salvation here. What I am discussing is MACRO EVOLUTION. I agree that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with discussing what Genesis tells us about who God is, so why don't you jump right on over and open a thread?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Scott, you demand that we "observe" macroevolution reminds me of the time when I was a little boy and boldly told my mother that the hands on the clock did not move. "Yes they do", she said, "but they move to slowly for you to see them move". No, I just KNEW she was wrong, I could SEE the hands weren't moving. But she was right.

The observations of vestiges - including actual legs sticking out of real whales in modern times - is evidence that a change of a macro type has happened.

Run your fingers over your gums and feel the large root where your canine teeth are. How many species back from homo sapiens was it when the canine teeth were large enough to justify that extravagant root?

Scientists have looked at the vestigal whale structures and have determined that they provide extra support to either the uterus or other reproductive organs while the whale is pregnant and during birth. This was told to me by a marine biologist in front of another marine biologist both with PHDs and both agreeing, while working with the United States Navy.

Believe me, when I was in an accident I found out what that extravagant root was for. I would have been missing a tooth if it wasn't. (First hand experience.)

Vestigal organs or appendages don't provide proof of anything. We may never know the reason for an organ. Or we may find out that it generates some hormone that helps fight a certain type of tumor; we just don't have enough data yet.

This is my point. We can point to things all day long and say they PROVE something like the evolution theory, but it is just a guess and there is still a good chance that future scientists will find more functions for these appendages.

In my opinion the vestage argument means nothing; while the interpretation of Genesis (the Word of God) means much more. So, go ahead and keep reinterpreting the Bible every time you make a new observation--some day you will be reinterpreting the gospels. Once you give a little ground, the enemy will take it all from you without you realizing it.

For example, in the 1960's it was illegal to say "rape" or "pregnant" on television and radio. The networks pushed the envelope and "it was okay, we weren't going to hear much by adding a few four letter words and a few kissing shots". Today we have people making love without clothes on right on television. We have accepted ANY of the words that Carlin said couldn't be used on television as long as they are used in news or context, not just for shock value. Ten years from now, we will have full frontal nudity. (Some frontal female shots have already been done.)

My point is this, if you start reinterpreting the Bible to allow for observations, then eventually you will give up the entire book. If you don't believe me, just watch.

Evolution is the first step towards getting rid of God who controls the universe.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Scientists have looked at the vestigal whale structures and have determined that they provide extra support to either the uterus or other reproductive organs while the whale is pregnant and during birth. This was told to me by a marine biologist in front of another marine biologist both with PHDs and both agreeing, while working with the United States Navy."

You misunderstand vestigal. Vestigal means that they "perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." LINK

It is not necessary that they have no function. But, the fact that these structures so closely resemble structures that had a much larger role in the past is the key.

But, why we are discussing whale vestiges, did this biologists tell you the function of the vestigal olfactory pseudogenes that whales carry scores of?

Did he say anything about the usefulness of the full atavistic legs that whales are occasionally born with?

Did he mention any use in the development of fetal whales where they grow cute little legs with cute little toes that are then reabsorbed?

"This is my point. We can point to things all day long and say they PROVE something like the evolution theory, but it is just a guess and there is still a good chance that future scientists will find more functions for these appendages."

It is how do you fit all the various pieces together best. The twin nested heirarchy. Genetic vestiges. Developmental. Pseudogenes. Morphological vestiges. The unity of phylogenies from different sources. The known transistional series. The correct chronology of these series. Ontogeny. Biogeography. Molecular parahomology. Anatomical parahomology. Suboptimal function. Transposons. Retroviral inserts.

"Evolution is the first step towards getting rid of God who controls the universe. "

No more so than using naturalistic means to explain the results of chemistry.

"My point is this, if you start reinterpreting the Bible to allow for observations, then eventually you will give up the entire book. If you don't believe me, just watch."

That is the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. It sounds good, but it is faulty logic. To give up the entire book is to give up Christianity. I don't see any of us doing that.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Lee Stroebel quotes a scientist as saying that it would fit into a fairly small box."

It is not an honest quote if that is the way he presents it.

The statement was made by Gee. He said that the fossil from 10 to 5 millions years ago would fit into a box. There have been additional fossils recovered from this period since then.

The bulk of the evolution of the humans took place in the last 5 million years and has a comparitively rich history.

I will try to remember to find that quote. Gee doesn't sound familiar.

This is waht I mean about unsubstantiated speculation.

Yet you have no problem with the unsubstantiated speculation that the micro processes we observe will eventually result in macroevolution? You are simply biased in a way that closes your mind to solutions that reject pure naturalism.

The atavisms, vestiges, gnetics and fossil record of the whales all point to the same thing. You have to speculate on something unfalsifiable and unsupportable to object.

You have speculated on something unfalsifiable and unsupportable to contend that macroevolution via the accumulation of complexity resulted in these traits.

"That is pure circular reasoning."

Evolution is the explanation for the observations. It is not circular.

Most certainly it is circular when the theory becomes the proof by which the theory is proven. That is exactly what you have when someone goes about placing fossils in an evolutionary tree that is presupposed.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I will try to remember to find that quote. Gee doesn't sound familiar."

It has been passed around a bit. I think Wells was the originator. But that was the basis.

"Yet you have no problem with the unsubstantiated speculation that the micro processes we observe will eventually result in macroevolution? "

Because of how all the evidence fits together. It tells a coherent story.

"You have speculated on something unfalsifiable and unsupportable to contend that macroevolution via the accumulation of complexity resulted in these traits."

I have told you multiple times how such things could be falsified. For example, a bird with an atavistic nipple would be a problem. A mammal with a vestigal chloroplast would be a problem.

Basically evolution can be falsified if you start seeing patterns in these such things that do not match expectations.

"Most certainly it is circular when the theory becomes the proof by which the theory is proven. That is exactly what you have when someone goes about placing fossils in an evolutionary tree that is presupposed."

If I asked how you knew that the earth orbits the sun, would you not start quoting the lines of evidence that shows that the earth orbits the sun? How else could you do?

You ask how I know that evolution happened, well I am going to start quoting for you the observations upon which the theory is based.

"...placing fossils in an evolutionary tree that is presupposed."

You do not have to presuppose the tree. You can take genetics. Look at different genes. You can construct trees based on what sequences in the genes are similar and which are different. They will only go back one way.

You can also take the order that the fossils were found and make a tree.

You can take which shared physical characterists various fossils have and make a tree.

You get the same trees from different methods.

 

[OldRegular]

UTEOTW

There is more than one textbook on Thermodynamics.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
UTEOTW

There is more than one textbook on Thermodynamics.

Then, please, give us one step in the evolution of man from our last common ancestor with the other apes that is prohibited by 2LOT and tell us why that particular step is prohibited. If entropy really is a problem, then it should not be a very difficult request.

And there are many textbooks on thermodynamics, but I would like to see one that attempts a different statement of the second law.

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's change direction a little bit. I'd like to explore the problem of all the large meteor impact craters on earth. We will start with a specific problem though.

YEers usually assert that the various layers were laid down in the flood at basically one time. Well, let's look at the K-T boundary. Between the layers of the Cretaceous and Tertiary lies a thin boundary. This boundary is rich in iridium, usually a reliable sign of meteor or asteroid impact. This layer is worldwide. It also contains glassy beads known as tektites and shocked grains of quartz. These are produced by impacts. This layer is attributed to a giant crater in the region of the Yucatan peninsula called Chicxulub.

Now, how did such a layer get in there among all the others? And how did human life survive such an impact?

Now since this is one layer among many, it would seem necessary to mark this event as having happened during the flood. Especially since layers above and below contain fossils though the types of fossils change dramatically across the boundary.

But, if the impact was during the flood, the iridium rich dust, the tektites and hte shocked quartz would have been mixed in with the other solids suspended in the waters and would not be concentrated in a thin layer. (This is in fact a problem for all layers of one type and for the order in which the fossils themselves are found in the various layers.)

Sorting by the flood waters to make such a layer also does not work because the three materials would have different particale sizes and densities and therefore would not hydraulically sort in a similar manner to one another.

So how did we get such a layer?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Scientists have looked at the vestigal whale structures and have determined that they provide extra support to either the uterus or other reproductive organs while the whale is pregnant and during birth. This was told to me by a marine biologist in front of another marine biologist both with PHDs and both agreeing, while working with the United States Navy."

You misunderstand vestigal. Vestigal means that they "perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality." LINK

It is not necessary that they have no function. But, the fact that these structures so closely resemble structures that had a much larger role in the past is the key.

But, why we are discussing whale vestiges, did this biologists tell you the function of the vestigal olfactory pseudogenes that whales carry scores of?

Did he say anything about the usefulness of the full atavistic legs that whales are occasionally born with?

Did he mention any use in the development of fetal whales where they grow cute little legs with cute little toes that are then reabsorbed?

"This is my point. We can point to things all day long and say they PROVE something like the evolution theory, but it is just a guess and there is still a good chance that future scientists will find more functions for these appendages."

It is how do you fit all the various pieces together best. The twin nested heirarchy. Genetic vestiges. Developmental. Pseudogenes. Morphological vestiges. The unity of phylogenies from different sources. The known transistional series. The correct chronology of these series. Ontogeny. Biogeography. Molecular parahomology. Anatomical parahomology. Suboptimal function. Transposons. Retroviral inserts.

"Evolution is the first step towards getting rid of God who controls the universe. "

No more so than using naturalistic means to explain the results of chemistry.

"My point is this, if you start reinterpreting the Bible to allow for observations, then eventually you will give up the entire book. If you don't believe me, just watch."

That is the logical fallacy of the slippery slope. It sounds good, but it is faulty logic. To give up the entire book is to give up Christianity. I don't see any of us doing that.

Regarding the cute little legs. This again means NOTHING. It is simply how God choose to allow the creatures to develop. Just because a human embryo looks like a tadpole does not make a person kin to a frog. If God created any organism and it was "good", then why reinvent the wheel every time another organism is made?

Yes, there is a slippery slope here. How many people have been turned away from Christianity because of the belief in evolution resists the need for a god? Carl Sagan made an entire ministry out of preaching this. PBS makes a ministry out of this--and honestly how many of these people do you actually believe are Christians?

I think your kind are far fewer than you might expect. Typically a person who believes in full naturalism does not believe in God, let alone Christianity. When creation by design comes into play, more people start believing. At least this is what I found about the scientists that I spent a lot of time with.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
UTEOTW

There is more than one textbook on Thermodynamics.

That's right, and there is more than one way of expressing the second law of thermodynamics. It defines the distribution of energy, with the possibility of conversion of heat into work, and sometimes there is a statement about how it represents a progression to disorder, and this is the point that causes the most confusion.

The transfer of thermal energy from a hot body to a cold body does not in itself represent a change to disorder, but it might have consequences that represent disorder, for example if some of the heat is converted to work that has random effects on the environment (for example knocking things over).

In particular, the distribution of chemical energy represents a progression to disorder because it causes chemical reactions to occur, so that substances change from one form to another. For example, if I have a brand new motor vehicle (an ordered structure), it will gradually turn to a disordered structure called rust. Chemical thermodynamics doesn't work for anyone's convenience. It just destroys whatever has been created. Of course if you have a badly designed car that doesn't work, it's already in a state of disorder and the second law won't make it any worse. Things either get worse or no worse, but they don't get better, and that's why evolution is incompatible with thermodynamics.

Mike Gascoigne
Anno Mundi Books

 

[UTEOTW]

Well, let's just start this by asking my standard question. Can you state one step in the evolution of man from our last common ancestor with the other apes that is prevented by the second law and why this step is prevented?

Now...

"The transfer of thermal energy from a hot body to a cold body does not in itself represent a change to disorder..."

I think you forget that the the change in entropy of such an action is well defined. The increase in entropy is equal to the amount of heat transferred divided by the temperature of the system. dS = dQ / T

"For example, if I have a brand new motor vehicle (an ordered structure), it will gradually turn to a disordered structure called rust."

But you, as an engineer, know that the definition of disorder used for thermodynamics is of a different sort than rust. It has to do with the ordering of the molecules. For example, let's say I have one mole of nitrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas. I mix them in a spherical cyclinder. Now, let's suppose that somehow all of the oxygen molecules end up in the top half of the sphere and all of the nitrogen molecules in the bottom half. How many different ways can you look at this mixture and se the same thing? The only way is to rotate the sphere about an axis running through the top and bottom. The gasses have taken on a very ordered and highly unlikely state. The entropy is low.

Now imagine the gasses mix. Oxygen and nitrogen spread evenly through the sphere. Now, every view you take of the sphere has the same appearance. There is no order to how the molecules are distributed. The molecules are distributed in a very probible state. The entropy is high.

(You actually need to add a logarithm in there.)

This is profoundly different than the type of disorder most people think of.

"Things either get worse or no worse, but they don't get better, and that's why evolution is incompatible with thermodynamics."

At this point you are merely making an assertion. Please be more specific about what step is prevented and why.

 

[Phillip]

Mike, you are a chemist. Help me with this:

We keep mentioning the law of thermodynamics. But, isn't there also more to it than just this (or does the thermodynamics laws cover this).

It is my understanding that everything essentially falls to its simplest natural state; whether it be a car that will turn back to iron ore (rust) or a universe that does contain energy, but as the energy equalizes, essentially that system is going to break down and "run down" (so to speak).

I think astronomers are already saying the universe will have to collapse in on itself, but what gave it the energy to disperse and have enormous "potential" energy to start with. Does this, in itself, not explain that a designer must be behind the system to at least "wind the clock"?

 

[UTEOTW]

"It is my understanding that everything essentially falls to its simplest natural state; whether it be a car that will turn back to iron ore (rust) or a universe that does contain energy, but as the energy equalizes, essentially that system is going to break down and "run down" (so to speak)."

I'll try. There are two parts here.

One is that things tend to minimize free energy. Let's just say that things tend to be spontaneous if they give off heat or if they increase the total entropy of the system.

The second part of your question refers to the ever increasing entropy of the universe. Essentially every time energy is converted between forms or transferred between systems, some of that energy is lost as entropy. Once it is lost, it can never be recovered. Since the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. this means that eventually all of the energy of the universe will be converted to entropy. The universe will die a heat death.

Now this does not mean that the universe will collapse upon itself. Quite contrary. The increasing expansion of the universe and the impending heat death means the universe will eventually consist of very cold matter spread out very evenly and thinly.

"but what gave it the energy to disperse and have enormous "potential" energy to start with. Does this, in itself, not explain that a designer must be behind the system to at least "wind the clock"? "

Well, I think we will all agree that God caused what we see even though we differ greatly on the methods.

Now, everything we see shows us that the universe must have had less entropy in the past. Extending this, it is logical to assume that the entropy at the beginning must have been very low. Explaining this adequately would require at least a book or two but I'll try the Cliff Notes.

Inflationary theory says that shortly after the Big Bang, the universe went through a period of very rapid expansion powered by the inflaton field. At the end of this brief phase on inflation, the energy of the field was converted into the matter of the universe. This lead to a universe that was very homogeneous. Normally, this is a high entropy state. But, on this scale, the effects of gravity become important and it is actually an extremely low entropy state.

Since then, the entropy of the universe has been steadily increasing.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

dS = dQ / T

As energy disperses, it becomes less and less available for doing useful work. Entropy is a measure of uselessness, which isn't necessarily the same as disorder. What I'm saying is, if you have something that represents order, by any definition, thermodynamics will reduce it to something different, so you get disorder.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

Entropy can be expressed statistically as disorder on a molecular scale. Boltzmann.

Entropy is a measure of energy that has become unavailable for work. I suppose you could say that this energy is "useless." It seems equivilent. The disorder that entropy produces is not what most people mean by order and disorder. So thus far you are making only general statements about entropy and order and you have not yet identified any particular steps in evolution that are prevented by entropy. If you cannot produce such a step and justify its exclusion based on thermodynamics, then your complaint is without merit.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
"It is my understanding that everything essentially falls to its simplest natural state; whether it be a car that will turn back to iron ore (rust) or a universe that does contain energy, but as the energy equalizes, essentially that system is going to break down and "run down" (so to speak)."

I'll try. There are two parts here.

One is that things tend to minimize free energy. </font>[/QUOTE]You've got that bit right, but not much else. The free energy defines the thermodynamic feasibility of a chemical reaction. The reaction is feasible if there is a loss of Gibbs free energy within the system, defined as:

Delta G = Delta H - (T * Delta S)

However, just because a reaction is feasible, that does not mean it will actually happen. There is also the Arrhenius Activation Energy that has to be added, to make the reaction proceed. The requirement for this additional energy acts as a barrier to the reaction, and it's a good thing that it exists, otherwise all combustible material would immediately burst into flame.

After that you've gone a bit haywire on your energy and entropy concepts. Energy doesn't get converted to entropy. It stays the same, but the entropy increases because it represents the extent to which the energy has been distributed around the universe.

I've described all this in the Thermodynamics appendix in my Impossible Theology but you'll find it in any thermodynamics textbook.

Mike
Anno Mundi Books
www.annomundi.co.uk

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
you have not yet identified any particular steps in evolution that are prevented by entropy...

There is no need to identify any particular steps. It's all prevented because chaos doesn't assemble itself into order of its own accord. The laws of thermodynamics are against the entire process. If chaos could turn to order, by some highly improbable process, over a long period of time, thermodynamics would return it to disorder in just a fraction of the time.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

"However, just because a reaction is feasible, that does not mean it will actually happen. "

Did not really see the need to get too deep into activation energies and such. It is beside the point of whether entropy is a problem or not. I mean, we can have a nice little discussion here on general thermodynamic principles, but it does not add much to the subject.

"After that you've gone a bit haywire on your energy and entropy concepts. Energy doesn't get converted to entropy. It stays the same, but the entropy increases because it represents the extent to which the energy has been distributed around the universe."

So I see you did not read my statement that "Entropy is a measure of energy that has become unavailable for work." You should have read that part before commenting that I seem to gone "haywire" and not got "much else" right.

"There is no need to identify any particular steps. It's all prevented because chaos doesn't assemble itself into order of its own accord. The laws of thermodynamics are against the entire process. If chaos could turn to order, by some highly improbable process, over a long period of time, thermodynamics would return it to disorder in just a fraction of the time."

If you cannot identify anything in particular about evolution that is prevented by entropy then you have not identified a problem.

"It's all prevented because chaos doesn't assemble itself into order of its own accord."

You do not seem to be able to decide if entropy is related to disorder or not. First one way and then the other. Which is it?

"If chaos could turn to order, by some highly improbable process, over a long period of time, thermodynamics would return it to disorder in just a fraction of the time."

So life, at all, is impossible? You have not watched how life manages to take raw ingredients, turn them into useful compounds, grow, reproduce, and then die where the molecules that make up the organism eventually return to the raw ingredients.

I assume that you cannot state anything in particular about evolution that is prevented by entropy but that you are happy making general statements for which you can find no consequence. Entropy does not seem to be a problem in that case.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
However, just because a reaction is feasible, that does not mean it will actually happen...

Did not really see the need to get too deep into activation energies and such.</font>[/QUOTE]I went into all that stuff to show that chemical reactions occur for specific thermodynamic reasons. They do not occur because some hypothetical not-yet-evolved animal feels a need to evolve.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
If you cannot identify anything in particular about evolution that is prevented by entropy then you have not identified a problem.

Yes, I have identified a problem. There is no reason why evolution should happen. Therefore there is no need to try and find something that might prevent it from happening. However, there are thermodynamic principles that militate against the whole process so that evolution ceases to be even an hypothetical possibility.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike Gascoigne:
If chaos could turn to order, by some highly improbable process, over a long period of time, thermodynamics would return it to disorder in just a fraction of the time.

So life, at all, is impossible?</font>[/QUOTE]No, life is not impossible. It exists because God has created it.

Mike