On Sun, 04 May 1997 19:34:29 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
[..]
>PM>Two problems with that. 1) thermodynamics does NOT pose a
>problem for the spontaneous origin of life, I thought that such
>anti- scientific arguments had died out
>SJ>How about some *evidence* Pim? I have cited evidence fron
>Thaxton et al, that "thermodynamics" *does* "pose a problem for the
>spontaneous origin of life":
PM>No you have shown claims by these people, you have failed to show
>that thermodynamics poses a problem. Why would it ? You are
>confusing an argument from authority with scientific reasoning.
No. Thaxton et. al. are respected scientists. Their book is
chock-full of hard, scientific evidence that " `thermodynamics'
*does* `pose a problem for the spontaneous origin of life' ". Their
book has earned the respect of origin-of-life specialists like
Shapiro and Kenyon. I cite their "claims" because it is impossible
to cite all their arguments from their 220-page book is, especially
since most of which are in mathematical symbols that cannot be
represented in text.
>SJ>"Since the important macromolecules of living systems (DNA,
>protein, etc.) are more energy rich than their precursors (amino
>acids, heterocyclic bases, phosphates, and sugars), classical
>thermodynamics would predict that such macromolecules will not
>spontaneously form.
PM>Of course perhaps equilibrium thermodynamics does not apply here
>as much as far equilibrium thermodynamics.
So you now admit that "*equilibrium*" (ie. "classical)
thermodynamics" at least does "pose a problem for the spontaneous
origin of life"?
>SJ> Roger Caillois has recently drawn this conclusion in saying,
>"Clausius and Darwin cannot both be right." ...This prediction of
>classical thermodynamics has, however, merely set the stage for
>refined efforts to understand life's origin....one cannot imply
>dismiss the problem of the origin of organization and complexity in
>biological systems by a vague appeal to open-system, non-equilibrium
>thermodynamics. The mechanisms responsible for the emergence and
>maintenance of coherent (organized) states must be defined."
>(Thaxton..."The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, pp116-117)
PM>Thaxton is wrong. Open systems do allow for a local decrease in
>entropy and far equilibrium thermodynamics does lead to increase in
>complexity.
"Thaxton" (et. al) are *not* "wrong". Their point above is that
"vague appeal to open-system, non-equilibrium thermodynamics" is not
>enough - "The mechanisms responsible for the emergence and
>maintenance of coherent (organized) states must be defined."
PM>That Thaxton does not believe this explains the origin >of life
does not make good proof that this is actually the case. >Perhaps
you can tell us which terms of the 2nd are violated by >evolution?
After all the SLOT is well defined in mathematical and >physical
terms.
See above. After three chapters of detailed argument they present a
"Summary of Thermodynamics Discussion":
"Throughout Chapters 7-9 we have analyzed the problems of complexity
and the origin of life from a thermodynamic point of view Our reason
for doing this is the common notion in the scientific literature
today on the origin of life that an open system with energy and mass
flow is apriori a sufficient explanation for the complexity of life.
We have examined the validity of such an open and constrained system.
We found it to be a reasonable explanation for doing the chemical and
thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the
configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting
and selecting work). We have noted the need for some sort of
coupling mechanism. Without it, there is no way to convert the
negative entropy associated with energy flow into negative entropy
associated with configurational entropy and the cor responding
information. Is it reasonable to believe such a "hidden" coupling
mechanism will be found in the future that can play this crucial role
of a template, metabolic motor, etc., directing the flow of energy in
such a way as to create new information?" (Thaxton C.B., Bradley
W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, p165)
>SJ>It is up to you to supply counter-*evidence* to support your
>view.
PM>It is up to you first to supply evidence that evolution violates
>the SLOT. You made the claim, you provide the scientific evidence.
I never actually said "that evolution violates the SLOT". My
position is that "the SLOT" is a *problem* for "evolution" (ie.
naturalistic prebiotic evolution). This, as Ratzsch points out is
the real, underlying creationists position, and it is also my
position:
"...Morris says that the natural development of such codes and
mechanisms may, for all he knows, be possible, although it is
unlikely. So although the Second Law does impose some conditions,
and although other empirical experience seems to impose some
additional constraints, at least in principle, according to Morris,
all of those conditions and constraints can perhaps be met: It is
conceivable, although extremely unlikely, that evolutionists may
eventually formulate a plausible code and mechanism to explain how
both entropy and evolution could co-exist. (Morris H.M., "King of
Creation", 1980, p117)
This objection does not preclude the possibility of evolution. ("The
Troubled Waters of Evolution", 1974, p101)
It may of course be possible to harmonize evolution and entropy.
("The Troubled Waters of Evolution", 1974, p99)
This of course does not preclude temporary increases of order in
specific open systems. ("The Biblical Basis for Modern Science",
1984, p207; "Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science", 1970, p127).
Morris says similar things elsewhere-from at least 1966 on.
("Studies in the Bible and Science", 1966, p146; "The Biblical Basis
for Modern Science", 1984, p207; "King of Creation", 1980, p114;
"Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?", Impact, 141, March 1985,
ppi-iv).
So what, then, is the problem? A major one, according to Morris?
concerns the required codes and mechanisms:
No one yet has any evidence that any such things exist at all.
("Creation and the Modern Christian", Master: El Cajon CA, 1985,
pp155-56).
Neither of these has yet been discovered. ("The Remarkable Birth
of Planet Earth", Dimension: Minneapolis, 1972, p20).
So far, evolutionists have no answer. ("The Troubled Waters of
Evolution", Creation-Life: San Diego CA, 1974, p100).
[The special conditions are] not available to evolution as far as all
evidence goes. ("Science and the Bible", Moody Press: Chicago,
1986, p60).
Notice the invariable qualifications: "yet," "so far" and so on.
And what that all means, according to Morris, is that "the necessary
'law' of evolution, if it exists, still remains to be discovered and
evolutionists must in the meantime continue to exercise faith in
their model in spite of entropy." ("The Troubled Waters of
Evolution", 1974, p101).
Those last five quotes, incidentally, come from four different books
written from 1972 to 1986, hardly an obscure brief departure from
Morris's usual views-and this same sort of view is found in Gish,
Wysong, Pearcey, Bird, and Kofahl and Segraves, from 1976 to the
present."
(Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, p93)
[...]
>SJ>Who said anything about "intelligence" *violating* "a law of
>nature"? If Intelligent Design can resolve the "problem" that
>"thermodynamics poses" for "the spontaneous origin of life", then
>that must be included *inside* "the laws of nature".
PM>That assumes a problem in the first place. If however nature
>cannot solve the problem then the designer has to use acts outside
>the laws of nature making it untestable.
Who said anything about "the designer" using "acts outside the laws
of nature"? If an Intelligent Designer "acts", it need be no more
"outside the laws of nature" than if an human intelligent designer
"acts".
[...]
>SJ>Pim, *I* have cited *evidence* "from a scientific point of view"
>for my claim that "the Second Law of thermodynamics poses a problem
>for the spontaneous origin of life". *You* have cited no
*evidence*, but just have relied on "an argument by assertion"!
PM>Steve, you have not cited evidence but cited an assertion without
>proof. You merely quoted someone who is unsatisfied with the
>explanation given by science.
No. What Thaxton et. al. show is that " the explanation given by
science" is inadequate.
PM>He did not show however that evolution violates the SLOT.
That's not surprising, because neither Thaxton et. al. nor I said
that "evolution violates the SLOT"! You really need to concentrate
on what your opponent says, rather than debate what you *think*
he says!
[...]
>PM>That is one way of overcoming such a problem but there not the
>only one. The assumption that a machine is necessary as a third
>factor implies a 'designer' were there need not be one.
>SJ>Fine. Show how a "machine" can be assembled without "a
>'designer'".
PM>Mutation and selective forces for instance.
Sorry, but "Mutation and selective forces" only work on already
immensely complicated "machines". Even the humble bacteria is a
"machine" far more complicated than anything our technology can
produce:
"E. coli must have some sort of long-term memory about how to
make itself that can outlast its substance. That means that an E. coli
must be an automatic factory containing something analogous to
control tapes and automatic manufacturing equipment. And that is
only part of it. All the equipment must be contained, organised, fed.
Pieces for it to work on, energy to drive it, must be provided by the
E. coli cell. Apart from the manufacturing machinery that can follow
instructions, there has also to be another kind of machinery that
instead reprints them - something analogous to a Xerox machine or a
tape copier. All these things have to be contrived through the
manufacturing machinery duly instructed by appropriate bits of the
Library tape. It may seem hardly surprising that no one has ever
actually made a self- reproducing machine, even though Von
Neumann laid down the design principles more than 40 years ago.
You can imagine a clanking robot moving around a stock-room of
raw components (wire, metal plates, blank tapes and so on) choosing
the pieces to make another robot like itself. You can show that there
is nothing logically impossible about such an idea: that tomorrow
morning there could be two clanking robots in the stock-room...(I
leave it as a reader' home project to make the detailed engineering
drawings.) There is nothing clanking about E. coli; yet it is such a
robot, and it can operate in a stock-room that is furnished with only
the simples raw components. Is it any wonder that E. coli's message
tape is long? (If you remember the paper equivalent would be about
kilometres long. ) Is it any wonder that no free-living organisms have
been discovered with message tapes below ' 2 kilometres' ? Is it any
wonder that Von Neumann himself, and many others, have found the
origin of life to be utterly perplexing?" (Cairns-Smith A. G., "Seven
Clues to the Origin of Life, 1993 reprint, pp14-15)
[...]
>PM>Much has happened since the Miller-Urey experiments. I refer for
>example to the research by Fox, Prigogine etc. Your assumption that
>the delay indicates a 'never' merely ignores the significant
>advances made by science in addressing the how. As such science has
>made more progress than the needless assumption that an intelligent
>designer is required.
>SJ>This is just naturalistic propaganda. Without unduly disparaging
>the work of "Miller-Urey", "Fox, Prigogine etc", a naturalistic
>solution to the mystery of life's origin is just as far away as it
>was in 1871 when Darwin speculated about life beginning in a "warm
>little pond". Robert Shapiro admitted as much when he wrote
>regarding Thaxton, et. al.'s book:
PM>You are wrong on this. Much work has been performed since 1871 to
>increase our understanding of the origin of life.
Yes. Scientists now have a better "understanding" of how immense the
"origin of life" problem really is:
"What then is the nature of the progress of the past forty years?
Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany,
suggests that our collective efforts have "led to a better perception
of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather
than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal
theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a
confession of ignorance.'' (Dose K., "The Origin of Life: More
Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 13, 1988,
p348, in Bradley W.L. & Thaxton C.B., in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", 1994, p176).
>SJ>Their point of view has been widely disseminated in texts and the
>media, and to a large extent, has been accepted by the public. This
>new work BRINGS TOGETHER THE MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS THAT
>DEMONSTRATE THE INADEQUACY OF CURRENT THEORIES. Although I do not
>share the final philosophical conclusion that the authors reach, I
>welcome their contribution. It will help to clarify our
>thinking....
PM>Shapiro merely admits that the current theories still are not
>complete. Not that no progress is made.
Read what Dose says: "ALL discussions on principal theories and
experiments in the field either end in STALEMATE or in a confession
of IGNORANCE.'' (my emphasis).
>SJ>Yes. The only problem for naturalistic evolution is that
>"machinery" must assemble itself, when the Second Law says that
>matter, in the absence of "machinery", tends towards dis-assemble
>itself:
>PM>Again this is based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding
>of the second law of thermodynamics. After all we do know that
>increase in order and complexity is possible. Of course the
>'machinery' in that case is for instance the energy from the sun.
PM>Sorry Pim, but "machinery" is not "energy" any more than a motor
>vehicle is the petrol. Thaxton, et. al. use this as an example:
PM>Again you are quoting an irrelevant remark. You claimed that the
>SLOT states that in the absence of machinery, matter tends to
>dis-assemble itself. Since I identified the machinery which
>provides entropy increase and allows a local decrease in entropy and
>provides energy that the argument does not hold. The SLOT does not
>state that the machinery has to be a 'motor'.
Pim, if you really wish to persist in your claim that "energy" =
"machinery", then there isn't much more that I can say! Lurkers who
bother to read this far, will draw their own conclusions.
>SJ>In the case of living systems such a coupling mechanism channels
>the energy along specific chemical pathways to accomplish a very
>specific type of work. We therefore conclude that, given the
>availability of energy and an appropriate coupling mechanism, the
>maintenance of a living system far from equilibrium presents no
>thermodynamic problems." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L.,
>"The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, p124)
PM>So there is no problem, the question remains, could these pathways
>have evolved or not. At least there is no problem, so far so good.
How can they "evolve" *before* there was an "appropriate coupling
mechanism"?
[...]
>PM>Of course the matter alone is the reason why this argument fails
>to address the issue. Evolutionary theory 1) does not address
>origin
>SJ>This is a common ploy, used by Gould:
>SJ>"In an article correcting "Justice Scalia's Misunderstanding,"
>Gould tried to set the matter straight. Evolution, he wrote,"is not
>the study of life's ultimate origin, as a path toward discerning its
>deepest meaning." Even the purely scientific aspects of life's
>first appearance on earth belong to other divisions of science,
>because 'evolution" is merely the study of how life changes once it
>is already in existence." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
>pp102-103)
PM>Quite correct.
The only problem is that Gould has apparently forgot what he wrote
earlier:
"Evolution" has three major scientific aspects, which are described
by leading evolutionists Dobzhansky Ayala, Stebbins, and Valentine:
`During the century and more since Darwinism came into being concept
of evolution has been applied not only to the living world but to the
nonbiological as well. Thus, we speak of the evolution of the entire
universe, the solar system and the physical earth, apart from the
organisms that inhabit it. As we shall show in chapter 11 ("cosmic
Evolution and the Origin of Life"), the origin of life is best
explained as the outcome of precellular chemical evolution, which
took place over millions of years." (2 Dobzhansky T., Ayala F.,
Stebbins G. & Valentine J., "Evolution", 1977, p9) Their book is one
of the "[t]wo textbooks of evolution [that] now dominate the field,"
according to another leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould of
Harvard. 3 (Gould S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference between
Fact and Theory", Discover, Jan. 1987, p65)"
(Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Vol. I, Regency:
Nashville, 1991, pp15-16)
>SJ>But this argument is based on a play on words. What it really
>means is that *biological* "evolution" does not address "life's
>ultimate origin". But this is a truism. Before "life's ultimate
>origin" there is by definition no biology. But *pre-biological*
(aka >chemical) "Evolution" *is* "the study of life's ultimate
origin":
PM>You are incorrect as shown by Gould.
Sounds like an argument from authority, Pim? Just because "Gould"
says something doesn't automatically make it true. I have cited
numerous examples in the scientific literature and textbooks where
"evolution" refers "not only to the living world but to the
nonbiological as well".
PM>Perhaps there was an ultimate origin in a creator but evolution
>does not care about this one way or another, it describes the
>observations and tries to explain them in a scientific frame.
I find it interesting and significant that you lapse into
personnifiying "evolution", ie. "evolution does not care",
"evolution...describes", "evolution...tries to explain".
Clearly "evolution" is to you more than a scientific theory.
>SJ>"In fact, Justice Scalia used the general term "evolution"
>exactly as scientists use it-to include not only biological
>evolution but also prebiological or chemical evolution, which seeks
>to explain how life first evolved from nonliving chemicals.
>Biological evolution is just
PM>Argument from (non) authority.
Refer back to your own "Argument from...authority."
PM>That Scalia confused the issue does not mean that Gould's
>argument is wrong. On the contrary, evolution in biology is limited
>to the evolution of life. That Scalia uses it in a wider meaning of
>the word has no relevance.
Of course "evolution in biology is limited to the evolution of life".
This is a tautology, life saying "evolution in" life "is limited to
the evolution of life"!
>SJ>one major part of a grand naturalistic project, which seeks to
>explain the origin of everything from the Big Bang to the present
>without allowing any role to a Creator. If Darwinists are to keep
>the Creator out of the picture, they have to provide a naturalistic
>explanation for the origin of life." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
>Trial", 1993, p103)
PM>Wrong. Science does not keep the creator out of the picture, it
>just cannot include a creator in any scientific manner and can
>therefor not exclude the existance of such. The assumption that
>darwinists want to keep the creator out of the picture is based on
>scientific arguments that inclusion of such a creator can not be
>done in a scientific manner. So, as far as evolution is concerned
>there is no need for the presence of absence of a creator. Nor is
>it required for 'evolutionists' to provide for an answer to
>questions they cannot address or which fall outside the realm of
>their science.
The above double-talk merely confirms what Johnson says!
Paraphrased it says "Science does not keep the creator out of the
picture" .... we just ignore Him! Behe likens this to trying to
ignore an elephant:
"Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A
dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying
glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the
middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, gray elephant.
The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderm's legs as
they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives
get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on,
looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say
detectives must "get their man," so they never consider elephants.
There is an elephant in the roomful of scientists who are trying to
explain the development of life. The elephant is labeled
"intelligent design." To a person who does not feel obliged to
restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward
conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were
designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity;
rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would
look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the
systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its
most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity."
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, pp192-193)
[continued]
Regards
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------