Jump to content


Photo

Two Giant Stop Signs Against Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
160 replies to this topic

#61 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:07 PM

There are plenty of spontaneous chemical reactions that result in increased complexity - combustion of hydrogen is a trivial example. There's no barrier to spontaneity of a reaction as long as the entropy and enthalpy combine to make a more stable energy state.

... if the system is isolated. Chemical reactions that result in a net increase of Gibbs free energy (i.e. a combination of entropy and enthalpy that leads to a less stable energy state) can and do happen, as long as they're part of a larger reaction that decreases free energy overall. Ozone formation is an example; it's thermodynamically unfavored, but add a short-wave UV photon to the mix and it happens with no problem.

First and foremost as to the reason why well established laws of science are given the status of 'law' in the first place.

Why was Hooke's law given the status of 'law' ?

#62 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:12 PM

entropy is BOTH about heat conversion and serves as the measure of disorder, by defintion.


Consider a cup of coffee standing on the table. As it cools, its heat dissipates into the room. Eventualy, it cools to room temperature (and if you have a sensitive enough thermometer, you'll notice that the room temperature has risen slightly).

The order of the coffee molecules has actually increased because their kinetic energy has decreased. In fact, if the room is cold enough, the coffee will freeze. Solid coffee molecules are significantly more ordered than liquid.

That's entropy. It poses no problem whatsoever to increased complexity.

#63 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:14 PM

[double post]

#64 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:29 AM

Consider a cup of coffee standing on the table. As it cools, its heat dissipates into the room. Eventualy, it cools to room temperature (and if you have a sensitive enough thermometer, you'll notice that the room temperature has risen slightly).

The order of the coffee molecules has actually increased because their kinetic energy has decreased. In fact, if the room is cold enough, the coffee will freeze. Solid coffee molecules are significantly more ordered than liquid.


At an overal expenditure of the total energy as it comes from an outside source. Your knowledge of this subject is very poor and it reflects the level of mind conditioning that you subjected yourself to.

That's entropy. It poses no problem whatsoever to increased complexity.


In an open system that takes in energy from other sources. But all systems still wear down in time. They all slowly degenerate and come to uselessness because the 2nd law is not violated.

Challenge: Can you think of a single machine or biological organism that does not age, wear down, degenerate, and/or die or become useless? Name one please. If you can then congratulations for you just discovered a perpetual motion machine or organism. But are perpetual motion machines possible?

#65 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:34 AM

... if the system is isolated. Chemical reactions that result in a net increase of Gibbs free energy (i.e. a combination of entropy and enthalpy that leads to a less stable energy state) can and do happen, as long as they're part of a larger reaction that decreases free energy overall. Ozone formation is an example; it's thermodynamically unfavored, but add a short-wave UV photon to the mix and it happens with no problem.


Are you trying to say that such systems never wear down, degenerate, nor decay?


Why was Hooke's law given the status of 'law' ?


Built in to the understanding of Hooke's law was the understanding that there were sometimes exceptions.

"Hooke's law of elasticity is an approximation that states that the extension of a spring is in direct proportion with the load applied to it. Many materials obey this law as long as the load does not exceed the material's elastic limit." (Wikipedia)

But there are no such exceptions in the understanding of thermodynamics nor Biogenesis. If you can find them in any of the classic definitions then post them.

By the way, I challenged you skeptics to give the date or time frame of the 'origin' of the law of Biogenesis. I never got an answer.

#66 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 29 June 2012 - 10:06 AM

Are you trying to say that such systems never wear down, degenerate, nor decay?

If they have a constant input of energy (say, from the Sun) there's no reason for them to. Are you trying to say the ozone production in the high atmosphere is decreasing for entropic reasons ?
Of course once the Sun's input of energy stops in 6 billion years, ozone production will stop too.
The Sun-Earth system as a whole does suffer constant decay, what with high-energy photons being constantly converted to IR radiation and all, but life is but a blip in that process (if anything it improves that process, if the principle of maximum entropy production is correct).

Built in to the understanding of Hooke's law was the understanding that there were sometimes exceptions.

"Hooke's law of elasticity is an approximation that states that the extension of a spring is in direct proportion with the load applied to it. Many materials obey this law as long as the load does not exceed the material's elastic limit." (Wikipedia)

But there are no such exceptions in the understanding of thermodynamics nor Biogenesis. If you can find them in any of the classic definitions then post them.

I can : the definition of the "law of biogenesis" that you posted explicitly refers to modern organisms. The laws of thermodynamics are fundamental to most of what we know in chemistry and heat transfer, so their implications as to what is impossible and what isn't are similarly strong. The law of biogenesis is much more analogous to Hooke's law - something that was observed to be true in certain conditions, but now that we know the underlying processes there isn't anything in these underlying processes that say that law has to be generally true. If you disagree, name one aspect of the underlying processes of life that make abiogenesis impossible.

By the way, I challenged you skeptics to give the date or time frame of the 'origin' of the law of Biogenesis. I never got an answer.

You did get one. Just because you don't accept it (because you keep having this idea that biology actually has a theory of abiogenesis, which it doesn't, as you've been told) doesn't mean it wasn't given to you.

#67 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 29 June 2012 - 10:10 AM

At an overal expenditure of the total energy as it comes from an outside source.
...
In an open system that takes in energy from other sources.


We have an outside source of energy, the sun.

But all systems still wear down in time.


Evolution involves a temporary decrease in entropy balanced by an input of energy from the sun. There's nothing unusual about that. Nobody questions the fact that evolutionary systems will "wear down" over time. That doesn't prevent them from working temporarily.

#68 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 June 2012 - 12:14 PM

If they have a constant input of energy (say, from the Sun) there's no reason for them to. Are you trying to say the ozone production in the high atmosphere is decreasing for entropic reasons ?


In effect, yes. but no matter what source an open system draws from it will mean the total entropy will increase overall. The ozone layer won't last forever. I shouldn't have to tell you that. You are so much without understanding as to what the founders of thermodynamics told us about the availability of energy and the eventual 'heat death' of our universe.

Of course once the Sun's input of energy stops in 6 billion years, ozone production will stop too.
The Sun-Earth system as a whole does suffer constant decay, what with high-energy photons being constantly converted to IR radiation and all, but life is but a blip in that process (if anything it improves that process, if the principle of maximum entropy production is correct).


Nothing lasts forever; not in the physical world anyway.

I can : the definition of the "law of biogenesis" that you posted explicitly refers to modern organisms. The laws of thermodynamics are fundamental to most of what we know in chemistry and heat transfer, so their implications as to what is impossible and what isn't are similarly strong. The law of biogenesis is much more analogous to Hooke's law - something that was observed to be true in certain conditions, but now that we know the underlying processes there isn't anything in these underlying processes that say that law has to be generally true. If you disagree, name one aspect of the underlying processes of life that make abiogenesis impossible.


I said to begin with that this was a lie. I am tired of being lied to. Whoever wrote that particular statement wrote it, not because of observation of the origin of Biogenesis but because like you and all other dishonest philosophers, you see the necessity to insert such an arbitrary 'modern' origin in order to escape the obvious.


You did get one. Just because you don't accept it (because you keep having this idea that biology actually has a theory of abiogenesis, which it doesn't, as you've been told) doesn't mean it wasn't given to you.


Give....the date...or shut it down. I mean by that stop with the inane wishful thinking because there isn't anything you can do to bring about the effect you believe in.

P.S. You have over 5,000 yrs of written human history to draw from; now name someone who observed life generate from non-living matter and verified it for all to see. Either that or I don't wish to hear from you on this matter again.

#69 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 29 June 2012 - 12:39 PM

In effect, yes. but no matter what source an open system draws from it will mean the total entropy will increase overall. The ozone layer won't last forever. I shouldn't have to tell you that. You are so much without understanding as to what the founders of thermodynamics told us about the availability of energy and the eventual 'heat death' of our universe.

And ? Life won't last forever either, not on this planet at least. You're talking about whether abiogenesis is possible or not, that's intrinsically a question about transient processes, not eternal ones. We are a long, long way away from the heat death of the universe. And if you think otherwise I would advise you find a way to slow your metabolism because all that breaking down complex organic molecules to fuel your cell metabolism is emitting heat and increasing the overall entropy in the universe.

I said to begin with that this was a lie. I am tired of being lied to. Whoever wrote that particular statement wrote it, not because of observation of the origin of Biogenesis but because like you and all other dishonest philosophers, you see the necessity to insert such an arbitrary 'modern' origin in order to escape the obvious.

As I said at the time : you quoted that definition, nobody else. You think it's a lie, don't quote it in the first place. And if you want to claim it's a lie, please demonstrate that current biology actually accepts a "law of biogenesis" that would apply to all life and not just modern, known life.

Give....the date...or shut it down. I mean by that stop with the inane wishful thinking because there isn't anything you can do to bring about the effect you believe in.

There are none so blind as those who won't see. And there are none so disingenuous as those who ask questions they're not actually interested in getting answers to.

P.S. You have over 5,000 yrs of written human history to draw from; now name someone who observed life generate from non-living matter and verified it for all to see. Either that or I don't wish to hear from you on this matter again.

LOL, yeah because I'm a YEC and think everything in the universe happened in the last 5,000 years. Oh wait I'm not. Does any abiogenesis hypothesis predict that humans should have observed it happening in the last 5000 years then ? Hmmm, it seems that none do ! It would appear your request for evidence has in fact no relationship whatsoever to any of the hypotheses you're trying to disprove ! How strange.

#70 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 June 2012 - 03:38 PM

And ? Life won't last forever either, not on this planet at least. You're talking about whether abiogenesis is possible or not, that's intrinsically a question about transient processes, not eternal ones. We are a long, long way away from the heat death of the universe. And if you think otherwise I would advise you find a way to slow your metabolism because all that breaking down complex organic molecules to fuel your cell metabolism is emitting heat and increasing the overall entropy in the universe.

As I said at the time : you quoted that definition, nobody else. You think it's a lie, don't quote it in the first place. And if you want to claim it's a lie, please demonstrate that current biology actually accepts a "law of biogenesis" that would apply to all life and not just modern, known life.

There are none so blind as those who won't see. And there are none so disingenuous as those who ask questions they're not actually interested in getting answers to.

LOL, yeah because I'm a YEC and think everything in the universe happened in the last 5,000 years.


No. It's closer to six thousand.

The Lord rebuke you skeptic; I told you in no uncertain terms and more than once to give us the date and circumstances of this 'modern' development of the Law of Biogenesis. You did not do so.

Bye.

#71 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 29 June 2012 - 03:54 PM

I told you in no uncertain terms and more than once to give us the date and circumstances of this 'modern' development of the Law of Biogenesis.


The circumstances are that the "law" has been declining in favour for a long time due to the lack of evidence that anything prevents abiogenesis. A "law" cannot prevent abiogenesis. Only the actual limitations on the actual reactions of actual chemicals could prevent abiogenesis from happening and we have found no evidence of any such restrictions.

The "law" has been refined so that it doesn't overstate itself any more

#72 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 June 2012 - 05:44 PM

The circumstances are that the "law" has been declining in favour for a long time due to the lack of evidence that anything prevents abiogenesis. A "law" cannot prevent abiogenesis. Only the actual limitations on the actual reactions of actual chemicals could prevent abiogenesis from happening and we have found no evidence of any such restrictions.

The "law" has been refined so that it doesn't overstate itself any more


That goes double for you, Ringo. Now either give the date and circumstances of the 'modern' advent of Biogenesis or just stop posting me on this. Stop pretending you have a case when you don't. Unless you give that date/period and the evidence that it is indeed 'modern' then don't bother for I will ignore you like I am your comrade in unbelief.

#73 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:55 PM

The circumstances are that the "law" has been declining in favour for a long time due to the lack of evidence that anything prevents abiogenesis. A "law" cannot prevent abiogenesis. Only the actual limitations on the actual reactions of actual chemicals could prevent abiogenesis from happening and we have found no evidence of any such restrictions.

The "law" has been refined so that it doesn't overstate itself any more


You are arguing on the basis of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This does hold true UNLESS what we expect to occur is more than what we get.


If I said to you that there was a 2nd moon, then the absence of a 2nd moon IS evidence against its existence since we would expect to observe a 2nd moon. The same logic applies here, IF life were to spontaneously create itself we would expect much more than what we get, one observation that goes against what we expect is to consider our talk on enantiomers and how they conflict with de novo synthesis of DNA / RNA / proteins in the first instance of their creation naturally).

#74 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:58 PM

No. It's closer to six thousand.

The Lord rebuke you skeptic; I told you in no uncertain terms and more than once to give us the date and circumstances of this 'modern' development of the Law of Biogenesis. You did not do so.

Bye.

Okay, are you talking about the law as a regularity of nature independently of when scientists formulated it as a law, or by "this 'modern' development" you mean our current scientific understanding that the Law of Biogenesis only applies to modern organisms ? I'd been assuming the former since you were asking about the origin of the law and you'd been asking the same question earlier in the thread, but given Ringo's reply to you I'm not so sure.

For the second, this 'modern' development of the law of biogenesis dates back to around the same time Pasteur's law itself does, i.e. the time biology as a field started to question vitalism. Pasteur himself was a vitalist but many of his contemporaries were already demonstrating that there is no "vital force" that separates living chemicals from non-living ones, and by the middle of the 20th century the consensus in biology was that life derives from chemistry and there is no "vital force" beyond that. I don't think there's ever been a time when the "law of biogenesis" was accepted as a universal in the field of biology at large so there isn't a specific date after which it only applied to modern organisms either. Here is a letter to Nature from 1871 disputing that the "law of biogenesis" can be considered a universal. And the rest is the development of molecular biology and biochemistry, like Fischer and Hofmeister proposing in 1902 that proteins are made of amino acids, John Sumner showing that enzymes are proteins in 1926, etc.

#75 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:03 AM

You are arguing on the basis of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This does hold true UNLESS what we expect to occur is more than what we get.


If I said to you that there was a 2nd moon, then the absence of a 2nd moon IS evidence against its existence since we would expect to observe a 2nd moon. The same logic applies here, IF life were to spontaneously create itself we would expect much more than what we get, one observation that goes against what we expect is to consider our talk on enantiomers and how they conflict with de novo synthesis of DNA / RNA / proteins in the first instance of their creation naturally).




To add a bit more, if you read over what you claim don't you sound a bit like "the eternal optimist", hoping for something to occur is not science nor is hoping that future evidence will support your faith in your hope.

A REAL scientist bases his / her claims on facts of what is, not what they hope to be. Yes hypotheses are made for future innovation however these are then validated by empirical experimentation. Merely all you have been doing is waving a hypothesis around as if it were fact.

Perhaps if you stated some evidence then there could be some creditability in your posts, since without evidence you're words are nothing.

#76 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:58 AM

The circumstances are that the "law" has been declining in favour for a long time due to the lack of evidence that anything prevents abiogenesis. A "law" cannot prevent abiogenesis. Only the actual limitations on the actual reactions of actual chemicals could prevent abiogenesis from happening and we have found no evidence of any such restrictions.

The "law" has been refined so that it doesn't overstate itself any more

You say we have found "no evidence of any such restrictions." In other words, there are no theoretical impasses to the chemical generation of life by chance sequences of chemical reactions. If it were just a problem of sequence, and a sequence could produce life, then there would be a mathematical chance. But this is not the case.

Impasses are created for chance reaction sequences when the requirement for "in place" systems are apparent. DNA is one of those impasses.

No.1. There is no evidence of anything simpler than self sustaining, AND independently reproducing life than that which is generated by the DNA system. Even if RNA world (for which there is no evidence) existed, you still have a bridge to cross at DNA, for which there is all the empirical evidence one could desire--from bacteria to humans.

No.2. The DNA system has a chicken or egg problem for abiogenesis. Namely, the replication fork enzymes...

DNA replication requires the cooperation of many proteins. These include (1) DNA polymerase and DNA primase to catalyze nucleoside triphosphate polymerization; (2) DNA helicases and single-strand DNA-binding (SSB) proteins to help in opening up the DNA helix so that it can be copied; (3) DNA ligase and an enzyme that degrades RNA primers to seal together the discontinuously synthesized lagging-strand DNA fragments; and (4) DNA topoisomerases to help to relieve helical winding and DNA tangling problems. Many of these proteins associate with each other at a replication fork to form a highly efficient “replication machine,” through which the activities and spatial movements of the individual components are coordinated. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26850/


The obvious problem: all replication fork enzymes are encoded by DNA. But they could not be encoded unless DNA replicates. But DNA can not replicate without the replication fork. Hence the evidence of impasse for abiogenesis.

This is a problem that has never been answered on this site.Posted Image

#77 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 08:48 AM

You are arguing on the basis of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".


On the contrary, I'm arguing against that claim. It has been claimed in this thread that abiogenesis is impossible. Because we haven't done abiogenesis in the lab yet, it is claimed that it will never be done - i.e. the absence of complete evidence for abiogenesis is taken as evidence against abiogenesis. Worse yet, it is claimed as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible.

When I say we have no evidence of anything preventing abiogenesis, I'm simply stating a fact. I'm not saying there is no evidence of a barrier, just that we haven't found any yet.

#78 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 08:58 AM

... hoping for something to occur is not science nor is hoping that future evidence will support your faith in your hope.


I'm not "hoping" for something to happen. I'm looking to see if it does. That's the very essence of science. It's better than sitting in the dark with your eyes shut muttering, "It can't happen. It can't happen."

We understand a lot about how biochemistry works. We're learning more every day. The "barrier" that creationists tout has not been found.

It's like a stone rolling downhill. When we see it stop, we'll want to figure out what stopped it. In the meantime, we don't expect to to stop by magic.

#79 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:08 AM

Impasses are created for chance reaction sequences when the requirement for "in place" systems are apparent. DNA is one of those impasses.


Nobody is suggesting "chance reaction sequences" so I hope you'll forgive me for not responding to your objections to them.

What is suggested is chemistry very similar to what does happen in every living cell. The only difference is that reactions that require DNA/RNA in the cell would proceed by a different mechanism in the prebiotic world.

#80 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 30 June 2012 - 10:16 AM

On the contrary, I'm arguing against that claim. It has been claimed in this thread that abiogenesis is impossible. Because we haven't done abiogenesis in the lab yet, it is claimed that it will never be done - i.e. the absence of complete evidence for abiogenesis is taken as evidence against abiogenesis. Worse yet, it is claimed as "proof" that abiogenesis is impossible.


You are correct. The argument against abiogenesis from absence of evidence is flawed argumentation.

When I say we have no evidence of anything preventing abiogenesis, I'm simply stating a fact. I'm not saying there is no evidence of a barrier, just that we haven't found any yet.


Nonsense, maybe you missed the conundrum that AFJ posted directly above this post of yours, see post #76. He gives a solid argument against abiogenesis based on evidence. Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users