Impossible evolutionary steps?

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by 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?

I have already answered this by saying that thermodynamics is against the whole process, not just the individual components. But you don't seem to be satisfied, and you keep nagging me about it, so I'll try and elaborate on it further.

First of all, it isn't clear what you are asking for. If you are asking me to identify something specific, that never evolved because thermodynamics prevented it, then you are asking for philosophical absurdity. It's like the man who sits in the road to prevent the elephants from coming, and someone says "But there are no elephants" and he says "That's right, it works, doesn't it?"

On the other hand, if you have got your own list of supposed intermediaries (including forgeries such as Piltdown man) and you want thermodynamic reasons why they should not develop, the answer is that whatever evolves from the ape-like hominids must be thicker than the hominids themselves because their brains have disintegrated.

Now, addressing the whole system, which is a much more reasonable approach, we are sometimes told that evolution is thermodynamically feasible because energy is captured from the Sun, and is converted to chemical energy through photosynthesis, and then you have the capacity for a loss of free energy all the way down the food chain. So far so good, but first you need the plants, which are incredibly complex, probably more than anything else in nature. They have the capacity to grow and multiply using nothing more than sunlight, water and minerals from the ground. The first plants had to assemble themselves in the absence of a thermodynamic input, and without them the rest of evolution is impossible. So now you have the thermodynamic reason why humans could not have evolved from ape-like hominids. They would have to survive for millions of years with nothing to eat.

Mike

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

(sigh) OK Old Regular, let me spell out for you just how information can come about in evolution.

Start with a life form that uses dna coding the genome and lets have a few mutations come along... So, in time, the differential result of which mutations become estabilshed and which mutations died out give us new information, that is new, alternative ways of building the genome to reproduce our critters.

Are you actually aware of the size and complexity of the genome? There are terabytes of data, and there is no hard disk in the world that is big enough to store it. You need a whole building full of hard disks, and people studying the genome have to work on small amounts at a time, as much as their own systems can handle.

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that all this data came together as a consequence of random mutations, in an environment where information is continually being destroyed? Such an idea would never have got off the ground if people at the time of Darwin had understood the genome as well as we understand it now. At that time, the living cell was considered to be just an amorphous, unstructured blob, and by the time the full implications of the genome and cell structure became known, evolution had already become institutionalised. It's been like that for 150 years, and careers have been built in it, and it continues to be perpetuated because people don't want to admit that they have been wrong for all that time.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

"First of all, it isn't clear what you are asking for. If you are asking me to identify something specific, that never evolved because thermodynamics prevented it, then you are asking for philosophical absurdity. It's like the man who sits in the road to prevent the elephants from coming, and someone says "But there are no elephants" and he says "That's right, it works, doesn't it?""

Nope, you still do not understand.

I am asking you to tell me which of the mechanisms of evolution are prevented by the second law. I thought that would have been clear when I said "The truth is that you cannot answer because entropy does not prevent mutations, it does not prevent selection, it does not prevent stasis, it does not prevent genetic drift, it does not prevent gene flow, it does not prevent recombination. Nothing having to do with the process of evolution is prevented by entropy and your inability to provide an example of something that is prevented is proof positive of that fact."

"On the other hand, if you have got your own list of supposed intermediaries (including forgeries such as Piltdown man) and you want thermodynamic reasons why they should not develop, the answer is that whatever evolves from the ape-like hominids must be thicker than the hominids themselves because their brains have disintegrated."

This is false on so many levels.

First off, I find it to be a highly questionable tactic to suggest that anyone today uses Piltdown man as part of any theory. You know that this is not true and yet you assert it still. This is not an honest way to go about debate.

Second, you can provide no evidence of why the brains of successive generations should "disintegrate." In contrast, I can point you to many examples of beneficial mutations happening. This is in clear defiance of your assertion.

This also sem to indicate that it is beneficial mutations that you seem to think are prevented. So, just how is it that you think that beneficial mutations are not allowed yet harmful ones are? Is the any difference in their mechanisms of their chemistry? The obvious answer is No! Both are possible and there are mechanisms in place to weed out the harmful and to fix the helpful.

"Now, addressing the whole system, which is a much more reasonable approach, we are sometimes told that evolution is thermodynamically feasible because energy is captured from the Sun, and is converted to chemical energy through photosynthesis, and then you have the capacity for a loss of free energy all the way down the food chain. So far so good, but first you need the plants, which are incredibly complex, probably more than anything else in nature. "

Perhaps you need to read again manchester's posts above where he points out for you how we can observe order arising in nature around us all the time as raw energy moves through systems. Point out the flaws there.

And you still have not demonstrated for us that any of the mechanisms of evolution are not thermodynamically possible. You have a problem without consequence.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Are you actually aware of the size and complexity of the genome? There are terabytes of data, and there is no hard disk in the world that is big enough to store it. You need a whole building full of hard disks, and people studying the genome have to work on small amounts at a time, as much as their own systems can handle."

Arguments from incredulty are not really considered valid.

"Are you seriously expecting us to believe that all this data came together as a consequence of random mutations, in an environment where information is continually being destroyed?"

First, life does a pretty good job of passing on the information in its DNA before it is destroyed. If it is unable to do so, that line goes extinct.

Second, many examples can be given to you of increases in information, primary through duplication and mutation.

"It's been like that for 150 years, and careers have been built in it, and it continues to be perpetuated because people don't want to admit that they have been wrong for all that time."

No it has been perpetuated because it is the only theory that can explain the data in a parsimoniously manner. 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.

Or do you have another theory which can explain ALL of these features of life better? Details if you do.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Or do you have another theory which can explain ALL of these features of life better? Details if you do.

Yes, God created it.

Mike

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Hello, manchester, most of us have introduced ourselves by giving a little of our background and what we now do. This helps us know the level of knowledge and experience. Why don't you introduce yourself this way?

You do not have to give specific on company names.

Phillip,

I've written something on Stunning Victory of Creation about why such a small minority of evolutionists should have so much to say, but are reluctant to say anything about themselves.

Mike

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by manchester:
For those who are impatient with this banter, as I am, here it is in a nutshell. The 2LOT says things don't become more complex without energy. We don't live in a closed system, we get energy from the sun.

To say that evolution is impossible because of the 2LOT, you have to say babies growing into children and then adults is impossible. You have to say that water turning into complex snowflakes is impossible. Basically, all of nature around you disproves the silly 2LOT argument of the Creationists.

I had intended to avoid posting on this thread because as I noted earlier: I have learned that discussion with an evolutionist, even those who claim to be Christians, is as useful as shoveling manure against a tidal wave. However, the claims in the above post are patently false.

To insinuate that children becoming adults voids the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it relates to the impossibility of evolution is beyond nonsense. Furthermore, all of nature around you proves the Second Law and the argument of the Creationists.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Benfranklin403:
>>>>>>>>The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that order cannot spontaneously arise out of disorder which is required for evolution to occur. Transition from a state of disorder to a state of order requires a decrease in entropy, again a violation of the Second Law. <<<<<<<<<<

No, the Second law does not state that order cannot arise spontaneously out of disorder and no, the real 2nd law is not in conflict with evolution. By the way, contrary to your claim order arises out of disorder every day.

Can you present one example where order spontaneously arises out of disorder?

 

[OldRegular]

manchester

The Second Law applies throughout the universe, not just the earth, therefore your argument about the earth not being a closed system is fallacious.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

Start with a life form that uses dna coding the genome and lets have a few mutations come along.

Heh Paul, where did that life form come from. Evolution either starts with nothing or makes inanimate matter eternal.

The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends. Currently the most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a tiny speck with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result. A second ‘guess’, which is gaining some adherents, is the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]! Those scientists who exercise faith in evolution insist that the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life supports the evolutionary model. Unfortunately it is common for those who accept the evolutionary model to suggest, subtly or otherwise, that creationists are either simple-minded or unlearned.

At this point it is worth repeating some earlier remarks.

Unfortunately many professing Christians have compromised the Biblical teaching of creation with the claims of evolution and embraced a concept called ‘theistic evolution’ teaching that God uses evolution to accomplish His creative purposes. The term ‘theistic evolution’ is self contradictory since the fundamental postulates of evolution are unlimited time and chance without design. The following remarks by leading evolutionists [from The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution or for that matter "punctuated equilibrium".

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

 

[Charles Meadows]

The Second Law applies throughout the universe, not just the earth, therefore your argument about the earth not being a closed system is fallacious.

How can it be a closed system with the monster fusion reactor called the sun shining heat directly on it?

This is a misapplication of this law. The second law of thermodynamics neither disproves nor supports evolution.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The Second Law applies throughout the universe, not just the earth, therefore your argument about the earth not being a closed system is fallacious.

How can it be a closed system with the monster fusion reactor called the sun shining heat directly on it?

This is a misapplication of this law. The second law of thermodynamics neither disproves nor supports evolution.

I did not say the earth was a closed system. I stated that the Second Law applies throughout the universe so your argument about energy from the sun providing the engine for evolution is fallacious.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by OldRegular:


I stated that the Second Law applies throughout the universe so your argument about energy from the sun providing the engine for evolution is fallacious.

When evolutionists talk about how the Earth is an open system, because it receives energy from the Sun, they are usually referring to photosynthesis.

Photons of light from the Sun are converted to chemical energy, sufficient to satisfy the thermodynamic conditions for all other biochemical processes.

However, to achieve this, first you need these wonderful things called plants, as I have mentioned earlier.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

So, God created created the genomes of eukaryotes to have a few percent of their genome to be inserts of DNA from retroviruses. Not only that, but he made creatures that would be thought of as closely related through evolution have the same inserts. For example, man and the other apes share the same set of inserts. The same strings and at the same locations. Even better, if you trace the pattern of mutations in these viral inserts, you find that the pattern is just the same as you get when tracing morphology...or coding DNA...or pseudogenes.

Speaking of which, why do all primates share a very specific mutation in one of the four genes that code to make the enzymes that make vitamin C? If created this way, why give the three useless genes and the one non-functional gene to begin with? Why do no creatures outside of the primates share this mutation?

Why do whales have dozens of vestigal olfactory genes for making the type of sense of smell that land mammals have?

Why were creatures created with vestiges that seem to indicate a shared past? Can you wiggle your ears? Not very useful now but it sure was to your ancestor who had to move his ears to hear better. Do you know if you have sublavius muscles? This was a muscelt that was used to pull the arm forward in your ancestors when that arm was actually a leg. Now it serves no purpose and is beginning to disappear. Some humans still have both in each shoulder, some only have one and some none. What about your plantaris muscle. This was used by your ancestors for gripping with the feet when they were more dextrous than ours are now. It has greatly shrunk and in part of the population it has disappeared completely.

What about why fetal whales and snakes develop cute little legs and feet and toes which are later reabsorbed?

For that matter, what about the atavistic legs whales are occasionally born with? Funny that a separately created marine mammal should have genes for legs and for a sense of smell.

What about all those transitional series? What about how they are in the ground in the correct order to a high statistical degree? What about how analysis of genetic material comes up with the same trees as the fossil record does?

What about all those reused parts? So a humerous then a radius and ulna followed by a wrist with a bunch of bones followed by the finger bones is the optimum design for the fins of lobe-finned fish, for the legs of reptiles and amphibians, for the legs and wings of birds and for the legs and arms of mammals? It just looks like the lobe fin was being slowly modified with time to do new things? What about all those genes that are made for recycled parts? Whole familes of genes with widely varying functions can be traced back to a single gene that has been duplicated and mutated multiple times. Yet you claim such things cannot happen. Other genes are the product of two other genes being duplicated and then parts of each sliced together in new ways. Thre are even cases where a virus has inserted its genome into its host only to have the host split a peice off, mutate it, and make it into a new useful gene.

What about those sunflower plants on the island of St. Helena that have managed to evolve into various kinds of trees?

While we are on biogeography, why is it that most of the marsupial mammals seem to have made it to Australia which also happens to be where their fossil ancestors are? Why are the New World families of monkeys just in the New World? The Old World monkeys just in the old world?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Can you present one example where order spontaneously arises out of disorder? "

I think manchester gave you several above.

Let's do a simple one. Water freezing. Liquid water is jostling around. It has fairly high entropy. When it cools, a natural process, it will form crystals. These crystal orient themselves into a regular ordered way. The are very ordered and have lower entropy. This is a way in which an ordered system and a local decrease in entropy happen spontaneously.

"The Second Law applies throughout the universe, not just the earth, therefore your argument about the earth not being a closed system is fallacious."

Only the entropy of a closed system is required to increase. The earth is not a closed system. It is in exchange of energy and mass both with the rest of the universe. It is an open system. Therefore the entropy of the earth or even of a small part of the earth can decrease so long as the entropy of the universe increases.

 

[manchester]

Who to believe on science, all of scientists of every religion all across the world or Bible literalists?

 

[manchester]

If you have even a shred of intellectual integrity, tell me how water does not turn into snow because it violates the 2LOT. Tell me how every instance of order from disorder and complexity from simplicity does not really occur because of the 2LOT. Not just picking and choosing to fit a bizarre and personl interpretation of obscure Bible verses.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The earth is not a closed system. It is in exchange of energy and mass both with the rest of the universe. It is an open system.

No, the earth is a closed system but not an isolated system. The exchange of matter is insufficient to justify defining it as an open system.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

"No, the earth is a closed system but not an isolated system. The exchange of matter is insufficient to justify defining it as an open system."

The earth receives energy from the sun at a rate of hundreds of watts per square meter.

The earth is most definately not a closed system!

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The earth receives energy from the sun at a rate of hundreds of watts per square meter.

The earth is most definately not a closed system!

Your definitions are all wrong. You don't know what is meant by a closed system. When you find out, tell me what is the difference between a closed system and an isolated system.

Mike