|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2004 : 20:36:20 [Permalink]
|
R.Wreck
quote:
"The total entropy of a closed system is always increasing is another way of stating the second law of thermodynamics. A closed system is a system that does not interact in any way with its surroundings."
Wrong. You are confusing closed systems with isolated ones. Closed systems can exchange energy but not matter. Please see my post to Dave for a reference to this.
quote:
The 2nd law does not apply equally to open and closed systems. That is, you cannot claim that entropy must decrease in open systems. Biological systems are open sytems. Therefore claiming that evolution, or any process which decreases entropy in a biological (open) system violates the 2nd law, is simply a misapplication of the law.
Is there something I wrote that is leading you people to believe I don't think entropy can increase or decrease in open systems? I feel you're reading something into my writings that is not there. I simply defined SLOT as with any spontaneous reaction or event, entropy will tend to increase. That definition works with any system. But please keep in mind that just because entropy can decrease in an open system doesn't mean that any particular system in fact, did decrease. But there are always reasons for increases and decreases.
quote:
No, I don't feel bad that the likes of you disagree with me. I didn't study thermodynamics in physical chemistry classes. I studied themodynamics in thermodynamics classes, and further in classes leading to a professional license.
The likes of me? LOL...That wasn't nice. Do you automatically dislike everyone that disagrees with you? You will be expected to support your arguments. I couldn't care less what your credentials are or where you received your training in the field. It's irrelevant.
quote:
Obvioulsy you missed the point, which is that the tree is an OPEN system and that is why it can become more ordered, and why that is NOT a violation of the 2nd law.
A tree is an open system but this is not the reason it becomes ordered. It becomes ordered because a designer preprogrammed code that goes into a seed jammed packed with nutrients and hormones designed to get that tree off and running. Eventually, that tree will grow old and die like everything else in nature.
Besides, it's a little obvious that trees can only grow in open and closed systems as isolated systems do not exist in reality other than if the universe is one; and we don't know that for sure.
quote:
Now, how about dropping the smug attitude and producing some actual evidence that the 2nd law prohiits evolution.
You are misinterpreting my behavior which is easy to do in this format. I'm very confident in my argument, but hope that I'm not coming off as smug. I only respond in kind to aggressive posts and I dislike even that. But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist.
quote:
Or better yet, some evidence of any kind that thermodynamics supports ID?
Well Gee. It seems to supporting it just fine in this thread. 
Dr. Mabuse
*******Since when does the laws of thermodynamics apply to biology?*******
I suppose ever since there was a biology and a field of thermodynamics. You can see how biologists use population entropy here:
http://www.santafe.edu/research/evolComputation.php
Thermodynamics of Aging:
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/ta1/ |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 20:56:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could go to the old quote mine but probably not necessary. Suffice it to say that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis interspersed with intense bursts of new speciations. These critters come into the record fully formed and ready to go in their environment. The fossil record supports the design concept and no other concept of origins.
Ok, well you seem to agree with the fossil record. Are you suggesting that some "designer", whether it be a god or ...quantum physics... kept redesigning life on this planet? Our fossil record shows an overall very slow change from fish to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds and mammals. Do you agree with this fossil record?
If so, all you are saying is:
Evolution A designer is responsible for the change in life.
Now how do you argue against evolution we have observed? For example:
quote:
In the genus Tragopogon (a plant genus consisting mostly of diploids), two new species (T. mirus and T. miscellus) have evolved within the past 50-60 years. The new species are allopolyploid descendants of two separate diploid parent species.
Here is how this speciation occurred. The new species were formed when one diploid species fertilised a different diploid species and produced a tetraploid offspring. This tetraploid offspring could not fertilize or be fertilised by either of its two parent species types. It is reproductively isolated, the very definition of a species.
Mammals:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse occurred less than 250 years after humans brought it to the island. Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock . (S. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1979, p. 41)
Birds:
During a series of natural catastrophes, the Galapagos island finch- species Geospitza fortis developed a larger beak, necessary for consuming a variety of seed unaffected by the ravages. This was a new phenotype never observed before, made manifest i n just a few years time.
# 9b. in the laboratory
Plants:
In 1905, while studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, H. De Vries discovered among his plants a variant having a different chromosome number. He was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named the new species O. gigas. (De Vries, Species and Varieties, Their Origin By Mutation, 1905)
In 1973, L. D. Gottlieb documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis from a large population of S. exigua in Harney County, Oregon. He was able to document morphological differences in five characteristics plus chromosomal differences. Attempts at crossbreeding these plants produced hybrids having either scant seeds and pollen, or developmental abnormalities. (American Journal of Botany 60, pp. 545-553)
After five years of selective crossbreeding, E. Pasterniani in 1969 produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of corn. The species were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids, which were not used for future breeding. (Zea mays L. Evolution 23, pp. 534547)
Insects:
There is a lot of literature about speciation in fruit flies and house flies. Different experiments have been carried out to examine separately the effects of natural selection and genetic drift. See, for example, J. Ringo, et. al, "An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation," The American Naturalist (1989) 126, pp. 642661, or A. B. Soans, et. al, "Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations," The American Naturalist (1974) 108, pp. 117- 124.
Tropical fish:
The question can be asked, is the sex ratio then just a non-adaptive consequence of the independent assortment of X and Y chromosomes in male sperm? Or, is the ratio adaptive and Mendelian assortment an adaptive trait that has evolved?
The authors of a recent paper put this to the test by studying the Atlantic silverside fish Menidia menidia . This fish has an unusual life cycle in that, during the early months of the year mostly female offspring are produced. In the summer months mostly males are produced. The bias in the sex of the offspring is induced by the water temperature. Female offspring are produced while the water is cold, males while it is warm. The sex ratio across the whole year balances out to 0.5. This sex bias is caused by temperature dependent sex determination, not temperature dependent sex mortality. In other words cold water makes baby female fish form, it doesn't kill male baby fish. The same embryo could be male or female depending on the temperature it is raised at (i.e. Mendelian segregation does not influence the sex ratio in this species.)
The authors captured hundreds of these fish and maintained them in aquaria for five to six years. Some aquaria were maintained at low temperatures, others at high temperatures. In the low temp aquaria, the populations began with mostly females. The sex ratio, for example, in one low temp tank was 0.70 (70% female) In the high temperature aquaria, the populations began with mostly males. In one of the low tanks the sex ratio was 0.18. Both of these, given the population sizes, are significantly different than 0.50.
As the experiment progressed, the sex ratios changed from the highly skewed initial conditions. In all the populations the sex ratios converged on 0.5. The trajectory of the sex ratios converging on 0.5 differed between many of the tanks. In one tank, the next and all subsequent generations were at an 0.5 sex ration. In another, it slowly converged upon 0.5. In yet another it reached 0.5, then overshot slightly, then returned. This indicates that a sex ratio of 0.5 is somehow adaptive be cause the fish evolved from a skewed ratio to a balanced ratio. Since chromosome assortment does not determine sex in these fish (temperature does), the only explanation for their convergence to 0.5 is natural selection favoured fish that produced an abnormal amount of the minority sex. (If males are lacking, any fish that produces male fish will contribute more than average to the gene pool).
This is a frequency-dependent kind of selection. As the sex ratio approaches 0.5, fish who produce a disproportionate amount of either sex will contribute less than average to the gene pool.
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm
Is this just the designer designing it in front of our eyes?
Just curious, how old do you think the Earth is? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:03:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
A tree is an open system but this is not the reason it becomes ordered. It becomes ordered because a designer preprogrammed code that goes into a seed jammed packed with nutrients and hormones designed to get that tree off and running.
Yeah, see that's the part I would like to see some proof on. What proof is there that seeds are jam packed with "a designer's preprogrammed code?"
It has a genetic code, but that's the only one I know of. Are you suggesting another, or merely renaming DNA?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/28/2004 21:03:43 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:04:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Since when does the laws of thermodynamics apply to biology?
Well, biology is based in chemistry, which is based in physics. All physical processes which involve a heat transfer obey the laws of thermodynamics, including biology.
A very special part of biology. While biological processes ultimatly depend of the laws of thermodynamics, stuff like the procreation of a species does not follow the SLOT. It's like trying to use the rules of Monopoly on Wall Street. Ok, poor example.
I had little time to write at work, that's why I didn't have time to make my point clear.
When, in biology, does one use SLOT?
A bacteria is living. When it is time for mitosis, the DNA is copied. The energy for the copying process is provided by the cell, but ultimatly from the environment. Without SLOT it wouldn't be living in the first place.
A mutation occurs during copying. This mutation happens, and the energy used for it is the same energy used in the copying process.
After that, it's just a matter of survival-of-the-fittest.
The same applies to mosquitos in the London Subway.
SLOT does not apply to mutations.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:05:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, biology is based in chemistry, which is based in physics. All physical processes which involve a heat transfer obey the laws of thermodynamics, including biology.
A tree, for example, takes sunlight, air, water and minerals to locally decrease its own entropy, at the expense of an increase in entropy in its surroundings (and an increase in entropy in the Sun itself).
This is true, but a bit muddy. Some, including Feynman have developed entropies that have nothing to do with heat. Schrodinger used entropy to study the atomistic disorder of cellular molecules.
quote:
But Jerry isn't willing to take his version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics far enough. After all, if an increase in complexity is forbidden by the SLOT, then a fertilized egg could not have grown up to become Jerry. So, either:
1) the SLOT doesn't apply as he thinks it does, or
2) the "designer" is present and actively "designing" constantly, in all living cells.
I don't have a version of thermodynamics. I use the same one taught at the universities.
I'll disregard the second one because this doesn't seem to have much to do with science. The decay effect of SLOT can be overcome with the addition of work and/or information into the system depending on what we're talking about. This is the case with eggs, seeds and embryos. These are pre-bundled little packages of energy, nutrients and instructions.
Finally, and this is to the entire thread, please understand what I'm trying to communicate. I never stated that SLOT would prohibit any form of complexity. I stated, with any spontaneous reaction or event, entropy will tend to increase. That's a big difference.
quote:
And Jerry has never - to my knowledge - put forth an adequate argument as to why he is correct, and everyone else who has a grasp of the Laws of Thermodynamics is wrong. His arguments have relied upon his equivocation of 'entropy' and 'disorder', which is simply wrong from a strict thermodynamics point-of-view.
Everyone else is wrong about what? You are wrong if you don't think that entropy can be disorder. That's all it is in some systems. This simple tenet would hardly seem to need references, but if you require them, they are a dime a dozen:
"The second law states what processes can proceed spontaneously. Here we are introduced to the concept of entropy. For a beginning understanding, entropy is disorder or chaos"
http://ed.augie.edu/~tmmcconv/thermo.html
"entropy is disorder"
http://www.lionden.com/254_lec_intro.htm
"Entropy is disorder or randomness in a system."
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/12onlandscape_beardsley.html
Now with this said, there are cases where entropy is not necessarily disorder. But I haven't used one yet. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:12:12 [Permalink]
|
| Did this guy just say that particles are intelligent? |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:28:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1) The fossil record.
2) The fact that the building blocks of life DNA and RNA must be designed by preprogrammed code inside an organism.
3) The fact that complex homochiral proteins must be designed by preprogrammed code inside an organism.
3) The existence of complex specified information in designed systems.
4) The existence of irreducibly complex systems that must be designed.
5) The fact that complex symbiotic systems that must be designed yet they are found in nature.
6) The fact that comparison studies show certain biological systems designed such as certain flagella and ATP machines.
7) the fact that redundant systems must be designed yet are found in nature.
8) The fact that function is an intelligently assigned property, yet is found in nature.
rofl.....
And here for a second I thought you might actually be bringing something new to the table besides the same old crap about thermodynamics, complexity, and percieved design.
Aside from the boatload of unsupported assertions (all your "musts"), you multiply entities in order to achieve your desired statement.
Complexity does not imply design nor a designer.
And the fossil record? What? Man.... you fundies need to STOP drinking the pond water. Species do not "appear" fully formed in the fossil record. Anyone who claims they do is deliberately lying, as it is impossible to be honestly ignorant on this topic and make the statements you have made about the fossil record.
So. What "designer" are you advocating? I mean, if you think the universe is designed, then you must have a likely candidate in mind for the designing. Why else call your "theory" Intelligent Design?
ID without a specified designer is like me running outside and saying to people "The World Series Has Been Won! Woooo Hooo!", and somebody asks me "By Whom?" and I reply, "I dunno. Does it matter?"
------------- |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:30:35 [Permalink]
|
Ricky:
quote:
Ok, well you seem to agree with the fossil record. Are you suggesting that some "designer", whether it be a god or ...quantum physics... kept redesigning life on this planet?
No, I suspect evolution is to blame for this.
quote:
Our fossil record shows an overall very slow change from fish to amphibians, to reptiles, to birds and mammals. Do you agree with this fossil record?
No, it doesn't scientifically show this. There are situations such as the therapsid fossils that could be interpreted as such if there was supporting evidence, but there isn't any. Speciation cannot be shown because two rocks 'look funny.'
This requires breeding tests or DNA tests and it is impossible to go back in time and do this. Furthermore this has no place in science as according to the Popperian thought inherent in the scientific method a tenet of science must be capable of being falsified. How would ever go back millions of years to do this? If you cannot, then call that what you will but you would not be accurate to call it science.
Could I get a source to the original papers you quoted so I can confirm they are studies by reputable scientists at reputable universities? I'll withhold comment on that for awhile.
*******Evolution A designer is responsible for the change in life.******
If it were me I would have scratched out designer and left evolution.
********Just curious, how old do you think the Earth is?*******
Probably getting on to somewhere around 4.5 to 5 billion years or so.
H. Humbert:
quote:
Yeah, see that's the part I would like to see some proof on. What proof is there that seeds are jam packed with "a designer's preprogrammed code?"
It has a genetic code, but that's the only one I know of. Are you suggesting another, or merely renaming DNA?
That's the code I'm referring to. It's programmed before the seed gets it, so it is pre-programmed code is it not? And code does not jump into existence. Surely Windows 98 did not poof out of a rock. Something programmed it.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:35:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Well I would hope that the people on here can handle their arguments without name-calling. That would be fairly juvenile, would it not?
Indeed, but everyone has limits to the amount of nonsense they can tolerate.quote:
With any spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase.
And who says that biological processes are "spontaneous" events or reactions?quote:
Knowing this, it can be said that entropy can only go up or stay the same in isolated systems. This is not true for open and closed systems.
Great. So entropy can decrease in open systems, like the Earth and its inhabitants. Thanks for clearing that up, and showing yourself incorrect.quote:
Finally you have Carnot's version of entropy backward: Entropy is energy not available for work.
A simple typo. Don't get worked up over it.quote:
This can also be shown as disorder:
"Entropy is a quantity that cannot be measured by direct means. It represents the amount of energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic system. Since work is related to order, entropy is also a measure of chaos within the system. The more orderly a system is the more energy there is available to it."
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~dlk/tangents/vortex/vortex_public.php
Fine. Now how does this relate, mathematically, to biological complexity?quote:
There is no such thing as an ID researcher.
Yes, I know that. I said that.quote:
We study biology just as you do. You will not find separate papers in ID biology and just biology.
And how many biology papers have been published supporting ID in general biology journals?quote:
This is simply a misunderstanding of what ID is and believing what you read from our detractors who just make this stuff up as they go.
Well, that's just prejudice.quote:
I believe astrophysicist Fred Hoyle may have been the first to calculate this disorder prediction:
And what does astrophysics have to do with this? Why should I take the word of Hoyle over the word of, say, any of the folks on Panda's Thumb?quote:
Well what do you believe I've been discussing? Genesis Chapter 1? 
I believe you've been dancing around, saying you've got evidence of this or that, yet not actually presenting any of it.quote:
You're right, *tipping hat* developing quite a reputation around the Web, it seems.
Obviously.quote:
But sorry, I don't know anything about verlch.
That part wasn't addressed to you, but to the rest of the members here, who know exactly who verlch is.quote:
I have listed several predictions of ID (I believe there were 8 of them). But I see you address them below, so you really didn't mean that.
No, you listed precisely zero predictions. You said, for example, "The fossil record [supports ID]." That is not a prediction, but simply an assertion which you have failed to support with any evidence. A prediction would be along the lines of, "since ID theory says this, then we should find that in the fossil record, and we do." Your eight assertions of fact, none of which you have supported with evidence, are not predictions.quote:
I don't feel there are several versions of it.
What you feel is of little consequence to the factsquote:
There are just those that mainly discuss it from a philosophical view, such as Dembski...
You're kidding, right?“William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) A positive scientific research program (intelligent design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture.” (Moreland 1999 citing Dembski 1998).
- Icons of ID: Is intelligent design science or creationism 2.0? Also, don't forget this.quote:
...others that attempt to intermingle it with religious beliefs which most of detest...
Since ID began as an attempt to comingle science and theology, it should be little surprise that the majority of IDists in publication are theists.quote:
...and then you have people like me who approach it purely scientifically.
Except you're abusing the sci |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:37:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
rofl.....
And here for a second I thought you might actually be bringing something new to the table besides the same old crap about thermodynamics, complexity, and percieved design.
Aside from the boatload of unsupported assertions (all your "musts"), you multiply entities in order to achieve your desired statement.
Complexity does not imply design nor a designer.
Well LOL, I'm glad to run across a happy person but don't get so wrapped up in glee you forget to address those tenets. I see you just kind of breezed right passed them. And I never said that complexity in itself implies a designer. Just certain types of it.
quote:
So. What "designer" are you advocating? I mean, if you think the universe is designed, then you must have a likely candidate in mind for the designing. Why else call your "theory" Intelligent Design?
ID without a specified designer is like me running outside and saying to people "The World Series Has Been Won! Woooo Hooo!", and somebody asks me "By Whom?" and I reply, "I dunno. Does it matter?"
I'm not advocating a designer. Please read the posts as this has been addressed. And I can assure you that there is no logical analogy at all between ID and a baseball game. Bad analogy, I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 21:41:50 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
That's the code I'm referring to. It's programmed before the seed gets it, so it is pre-programmed code is it not? And code does not jump into existence. Surely Windows 98 did not poof out of a rock. Something programmed it.
Equivocation between computer code we know was designed, and genetic code of unknown origin. Swatting your equivocations is too easy, Jerry. They do not make for a solid logical foundation.
Also, since we do know the source of a particular seed's genetic code, "programmed" doesn't cut it. The people who wrote Windows 98 did not take two halves of an operating system and mix 'em up, and put the result on store shelves (those who know Microsoft's history can keep your wise-cracks to yourselves). But that's just what a seed's "parents" did. So, the similarities between computer code and genetic code end right at the same spot that they're important.
So, your analogy fails before it gets anywhere. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 23:05:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
This is just a scientific fact that everyone who has taken a genetics and evolution course already knows. DNA has never been synthesized or found outside an organism. RNA has been formulated in a lab by a designer but is found nowhere else in nature outside an organism.
But in such a case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are good reasons why we don't find such conditions now, but to assume that the environment has always been as it is now is laughable.
Ok, this is slightly off topic, but it's something I've been thinking about and am finally seeking some clarification on. (I apologize in advance for any incorrect terms or their improper usage, which will have been entirely due to incompetence.)
I know many scientists are currently struggling with concepts of abiogenesis and the synthesis of RNA or other "building blocks of life" in the lab, and some progress (though not total success) has been achieved. Two of the biggest charges leveled at this work, from what I hear, are: 1) Lab conditions are optimal and not necessarily representative of early earth conditions, and 2) If abiogenesis were possible, life should still be spontaneously generating currently today.
#1 I won't address, because it's true of nearly any experiment, and if it can happen in a lab, it could have happened on a young earth. #2 is what I seek clarification on. Dave pointed out that the current conditions on the planet (I'm assuming such things as ambient temperature, general chemical composition, etc.) are most likely different than they were then. Makes sense.
But, and this is what I'm curious about, is it possible that abiogenesis is occurring somewhere, under some conditions, on earth right now? The way I see it, the biggest threat to any new life (apart from the proper conditions), would be existing life. I mean, most of the ecological "niches" on this planet are all ready occupied by some life form. If a new one did spontaneously appear, my guess is that it wouldn't be left alone long enough to make any sort of headway. It's one thing to start out on wobbly legs when the planet was devoid of life, but quite another when you're trying to get into the game 3 billions years behind everyone else. So, maybe yesterday a simple bacteria (or whatever) did sort of assemble itself, replicated a few hundred times, became quickly out-competed and then petered out. Maybe this sort of thing isn't that uncommon, just difficult to detect because the phenomenon would tend to be short-lived. Is that an unreasonable speculation?
Also, any chance such a new, simple, self-replicating life form could "join up" with or could be incorporated into another existing life form later on? I mean, perhaps some of these "irreducibly complex" features within existing life forms arose independently of one another. Isn't that the current hypothesis on mitochondria? Is all life necessarily hypothesized to have started all at once, or could it have been staggered throughout different time periods in isolated areas until a type of planet-wide "biological saturation" was reached? (I made up that last term.)
Ok, so anyway, to wrap up, is it possible that abiogenesis is still occurring on this planet? Why or why not, and would it be theoretically possible to detect it if it was? (i.e. apart from it being somehow fundamentally different from all other life on earth, how could one tell whether a life form was "new.")
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/28/2004 23:24:09 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 00:12:19 [Permalink]
|
Hello Dave:
*******And who says that biological processes are "spontaneous" events or reactions?*******
I would have no idea. I certainly didn't say it.
quote:
Great. So entropy can decrease in open systems, like the Earth and its inhabitants. Thanks for clearing that up, and showing yourself incorrect.
LOL...That show's I am incorrect? But I'm the guy that said it. So how does the fact that what I just stated is correct show that I'm incorrect.
*****Fine. Now how does this relate, mathematically, to biological complexity?******
It can be shown mathematically when coupled with the biology paper I just posted showing how the human genome is becoming more disordered over time. Configurational entropy can be shown as:
S = (N1 + N2)! / N1!N2!
Where N is non-mutated or neutrally mutated bases and N2 is deleteriously mutated bases.
quote:
And how many biology papers have been published supporting ID in general biology journals?
Tons of them. I just posted one for you that was published in Nature.
quote:
And what does astrophysics have to do with this? Why should I take the word of Hoyle over the word of, say, any of the folks on Panda's Thumb?
Well, I don't care if you take his word on anything at all. You asked who was the first to predict deteriorating genomes in ID. He's dead and was really old when he died, so probably him. That's what you asked and I simply answered your question. #65532;
quote:
No, you listed precisely zero predictions. You said, for example, "The fossil record [supports ID]." That is not a prediction, but simply an assertion which you have failed to support with any evidence. A prediction would be along the lines of, "since ID theory says this, then we should find that in the fossil record, and we do." Your eight assertions of fact, none of which you have supported with evidence, are not predictions.
I can reword every one of those into predictions. How about: ID predicts that organisms originate fully formed and ready to go in their environment. Now what predictions can you give me that Darwinism makes?
quote:
You're kidding, right?
“William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) A positive scientific research program (intelligent design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture.” (Moreland 1999 citing Dembski 1998).
- Icons of ID: Is intelligent design science or creationism 2.0?
Also,
I fail to see how that addresses my assertion that Dembski is a philosopher and advocates ID from a philosophical paradigm. I mean that wasn't exactly a scientific experiment you posted. I haven't seen much science come out of Dembski, just math and philosophy. That's OK, because that has its place as well. I'm asserting that we are studying the same ID, just from different perspectives.
quote:
Since ID began as an attempt to comingle science and theology, it should be little surprise that the majority of IDists in publication are theists.
They can be theists, atheists or agnostics. Mox nix. If their science walks it walks. I could care less about their religious beliefs, their morals or their sexual orientation. And all I care about is what ID is now, not how it started. But I suppose you think that Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle who argued teleology in the halls of ancient Greece were Christians?
quote:
Where is that shown in the math or the science of quantum physics. Talk about "making it up as you go along!"
You must not be aware of what I'm talking about. Please explain this experiment:
http://www.geocities.com/sunjara/ProphesyingParticles.html
quote:
It doesn't. That's the point! QM is not intuitive, yet you go along as if it were.
Then you misread the article:
"Do atoms know when we're looking at them? Even before this question has been satisfactorily answered, a new question has surfaced: Do atoms know that we're going to look at them before the event actually occurs? A documented experiment conducted by two prestigious universities actually implies the affirmative.
"But it doesn't--not according to the independent experiments carried out by the University of Maryland and the University of Munich. These experiments confirm that the particle actually goes through only a single hole--just as if it had known that it was going to be observed. It makes only a solitary dot on the screen. The little scoundrel anticipates that a detector will be watching him later, and refuses to perform his startling bi-location behavior! And of course, when the detector is removed, the particle goes through both holes, interferes with itself, and the screen shows the pattern to prove it.
The question now is "do the particles actually know that the scientists will be watching them later?" Or--to look at it a different way--"Do the scientists actually change what the particles did in the past by watching them
in the present?!"
Link above
quote:
No, now you're quote mining. I quoted the site quoting Tipler on the falsification of his ideas. Your quote has zero bearing on that subject, but instead argues from authority and popularity.
I'm quote mining because I point out what the reference you posted actually says? Sheeze...You're being a little tough on me aren't you?
quote:
Actually the fact that 98% of the species found in the fossil record are extinct is a central tenet of ID in that the field predicts disorder in the genome until extinction occurs via mutational meltdown along with other reasons, of course.
Which clearly states that you know that extinction occurs due to "mutatio |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 00:27:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Equivocation between computer code we know was designed, and genetic code of unknown origin. Swatting your equivocations is too easy, Jerry. They do not make for a solid logical foundation.
*sigh* Dave, you have this irritating habit of answering everyone else's posts including yours. Do you really feel that no one but you are capable of answering my replies?
quote:
Also, since we do know the source of a particular seed's genetic code, "programmed" doesn't cut it.
Why does code not have to be programmed? How do you think information gets concentrated, by osmosis? How did the code get into the first cell that contained it unless it was programmed into it like all other code is programmed. What other complex codes are you aware of that just *poofed* into existence?
quote:
The people who wrote Windows 98 did not take two halves of an operating system and mix 'em up, and put the result on store shelves (those who know Microsoft's history can keep your wise-cracks to yourselves). But that's just what a seed's "parents" did. So, the similarities between computer code and genetic code end right at the same spot that they're important.
No, this is incorrect. There is software programmed to copy itself over and over ad nauseum like computer worms and the like similar to reproduction in organisms. How do you explain that first software code that was written. Was it programmed, or did it just morph from a rock or something. This is what we have to look at. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2004 : 00:46:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
quote:
Simple: the theories regarding evolution predict that irreducibly complex (IC) systems can - indeed should - arise, if they are better able to reporduce that their non-IC competitors. The arugments against evolving IC put forth by ID proponents are uncompelling, especially in the assumptions they make (for example, that proteins in organisms have always been "optimal").
But I don't understand this without intelligence involved. Take a mammalian circulatory system. They are IC systems and consist macroscopically of a heart, lungs, blood vessels, hemoglobin, plasma, a kidney and a brain. How would a kidney know that a heart was coming later to pump the blood that does not exist yet so it can be there when needed? How could lungs know that a kidney would later evolve so it goes ahead and evolves now so it will be there? Conversely, why would a heart evolve before there is blood to pump, a kidney to keep that blood clean and lungs to oxygenate what it pumps?
These separate components must be formed together unless you're claiming magic or intelligence or something.
I don't follow you here at all. Yes, the organs of that system must have evolved together (even if some of those organs originally had different functions.)
So how does that lead you to deduce an intelligence was involved? Seriously, as written, your argument is as follows: "Interdependant organs change in ways that affect one another, therefore intelligent design." Huh?
Also, you know damn well that evolution doesn't propose anything like a "heart evolving to pump the blood that does not exist." That's a straw man argument, and we tend to dislike them here. If you plan to argue against evolution, please present it fairly.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/29/2004 00:50:29 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
