Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Saturday, March 20 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1351
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:37:24 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: where's the evolution?
>
>> >And, I'm still waiting for an emperical example of an
>> >indefinite increase of complexity in a closed system (evolution).
>> >
>>
>> I realize that I am baiting a rabid bear here, but....
>>
>> First of all, evolution does not work in a closed system;
>> evolution works in open systems.
>
>First, I didn't say closed to energy and obviously such closure isn't even
>implied. Obviously, I'm talking about an independent system, not an
>isolated
>system. How about "closed to outside information and organization."
>
It's quite obvious that you do not understand the first thing about
thermodynamics. There are three thermodynamic systems. An isolated system
is one in which neither matter nor energy is exchanged between the system
itself and its surroundings. A closed system is one in which only energy
can be exchanged between the system itself and its surroundings. An open
system is one in which both energy and matter can be exchanged between the
system itself and its surroundings.
Evolution does not work in either isolated or closed systems; it only works
in open systems. As such, your definition is fatally flawed.
>
>> Secondly, evolution is actually defined as the change in the frequency of
>> one or more genes within a population of organisms.
>
>Secondly, as no one is disputing that genes in a population change in
>frequency, your definition is irrelevant.
>
So you are saying that the only acceptable definition of evolution is a
controversial one?
I should also point out that this is not "my" definition, but it is the
official scientific definition of evolution. As such, your definition is
also flat wrong.
It is equally obvious that you do not know the first thing about basic
evolution or basic science either. As with any scientific theory, there are
two parts to evolution. One is the observed predictable and reproducible
phenomenon that needs to be explained, and the other is the mechanism
proposed to explain it. The observed predictable, reproducible phenomenon
that is called evolution is the change in frequency of one or more genes
within a population. The mechanism Darwin proposed to explain this
phenomenon is natural selection, which has been modified by the addition of
genetics. Other mechanisms have been proposed as well, but they all attempt
to explain the same basic phenomenon. As such, your definition doesn't even
match observable reality.
>
>> Read any textbook by
>> Douglas Futuyma for the empirical evidence of this that you seek.
>>
>> No doubt you will maintain that only macroevolution is truely evolution
>> in the sense you mean it. There too Futuyma can provide the
>> empirical evidence you seek.
>
>As I assert Evolution (the indefinite increase of complexity in a system
>open
>only to energy -- such as ameba-to-man) is impossible, I'm confident that
>none of Futuyma's books contain empirical examples.
>
As I have pointed out, your definition is flawed, flat wrong and contradicts
reality. (Further examples: man did not evolve from the amoeba, though
both man and amoeba evolved from a common ancestor; evolution does not
create complexity, only diversity.) So you are correct that evolution as
YOU envision it is impossible and there can be no empirical evidence to
support it.
So let me ask you, what empirical evidence do you have that demonstrates
that your definition is best and thus evolution is impossible?
>
>I've offered this challenge for years; no one has ever met the challenge.
>
I have often challenged creationists on this list and elsewhere to provide
empirical evidence that supports their claims, but none have ever met my
challenge either. But then, I don't challenge them with false views of
creation that they can never prove. I simply ask them to prove their own
claims; as such I find their refusal significant. Can you answer my
challenge?
>
>If you
>Evolutionists can't even show that evolution is possible....
>
Ah, but it is possible; read Futuyma for the evidence you need to convince
yourself of that.
>
>...why are we wasting all this
>time debating weak circumstantial evidence that it accounts for the
>complexity of modern life?
>
There is always the hope that a horse led to water will drink. In other
words, I hold out hope that at least one creationist will be convinced by
the evidence presented that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. A
forlorn hope, perhaps, but then we Irish have a passion for lost causes.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:39:46 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
>
>>I suspect that if you did it would involve some kind of
>>vitalistic nonsense about how "life" is some mystical quality that sets a
>>living cell apart from a test tube containing chemicals, or some such
>>schlock.
>
>Actually, no.
>
Actually my above comment was a direct response to David Tyler's comments,
not yours. I thought I had made that clear, but I guess I did not; sorry
for the confusion.
>
>I think I have a very applicable working defintion which can
>easily be applied and even must be applied to get from "simple chemicals"
>to a "living cell" as it is expressed on earth and has been for the last 4
>billion years. It requires a dynamic information system. The genetic code
>and it's necessary machinery.
>
This not unreasonable, but in fact there is, and has been, a great deal of
controversy over just this kind of question. As you mean it, any living
organism must have some form of information system, but most professional
biochemists -- including myself -- do not accept your definition of
information (as you explained it in another post). Instead, we recognize
that the physiochemical forces are in many ways quite sufficient an
information system to produce not only biomolecules, but primitive metabolic
systems as well. As such, we do not believe that any genetic code is _a
priori_ absolutely necessary for life, as long as there is some way in which
to produce biomolecules and polymeric catalysts. And in fact many
abiogenetic experiments support this realization.
>
>Now, for abiogenesis to be a fact, in my book, a "genetic code" (it doesn't
>have to be the one in use currently (with some minor variations) in every
>living thing on earth) must be observed to emerge without design from
>whatever biochemical soup is thought up for such an experiment. It must
>also have the ability to express itself.
>
See above. Your requirement is too stringent from a biochemical point of
view. Let me ask you a question: are red blood cells alive by your
definition? They contain no nucleus, hence no genetic code, yet they have a
fully functional metabolic system that allows them to process food into
energy and use that energy to build new structures.
Let me ask you another question: are viruses alive? They have a genetic
code, but no metabolic system.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 16:42:20 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: IC (Challenge)
>
>>
>>Nothing could be simpler. Want to try it yourself?
>>
>Cooooool. Yes, I want to play with toys like that.
>
All you need is a college degree in molecular biology. A BS would be enough
to get you in the door as a research technician, but if you got a PhD you
could do your own work as a principle investigator.
>
>Wow, the things you
>could do! The process you described includes the ability to reproduce a
>specific new protein that had been created. So, if you get a really
>interesting one, you can produce enough to really study its function. (Uhm,
>provided you have the funding, etc) Cooool. I also see applications for
>use in the medical field in searching for new treatments.
>
They are already working on it, using a modified version in which they take
a dozen genes for the same protein but from different organisms. This
allows them to take advantage of any new domains that have evolved while the
ancestral gene was diversifying. A number of labs have already gotten some
good results.
>
>I am still thinking about these proteins in relation to IC. Something
>doesn't quite fit with what I understand the definition of IC is. I'll get
>back to you in a couple of days when it has stewed enough.
>
If you don't mind a final comment, I believe the reason is because IC is
based on a bad analogy. IC assumes that proteins are like mousetraps in
that they are artifacts that must be specifically designed and built by
intelligence. I have no doubt that a mousetrap is IC, but a mousetrap could
not evolve on its own (no dynamic information system). If in fact proteins
are not artifacts, but are simply smaller versions of whole organisms, then
they too could have evolved piecemeal over time, even though the current
result "appears" to be IC.
>
>Thank you very much for a fascenating description,
>
You are most welcome.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:06:15 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
>
>You are again bowing to the god Evolution here. Why should we believe
>that the God who inspired the writing of this Book; the One having the
>power to give eternal life to those who believe on him; should err in
>the matter of the order in which things were done? How can you possibly
>question this?
>
So I guess that when God says that the moon is a "light" like the sun, the
moon must really be a miniature star. How can you possibly question this?
So I guess that when God says that Joshua commanded the moon and the sun to
stand still, both actually move around the earth. How can you possibly
question this?
So I guess that when God says He holds all things together, gravity, the
strong nuclear force and electromagnetism must be false sciences. How can
you possibly question this?
So I guess that when God says He is the source for all illness and the
source for all curing, the germ theory of disease and immunology must be
false sciences as well. How can you possibly question this?
So I guess that when God says that Solomon had a circular tub built that was
thirty cubits in circumference and 10 cubits in diameter, the value of pi
must really be 3 (otherwise the circumference of a 10 cubit-diameter circle
would have been 31.5 cubits, or the diameter of a 30 cubit-circumference
circle would have been 9.5 cubits). How can you possibly question this?
So I guess that rabbits must chew the cud, insects must have only four legs
and bats must be birds, since God said so. How can you possibly question
this?
OR
Maybe the men who wrote the Bible believed these things and included them,
even though God would have known they were wrong. Since none of them would
have any significance for the message He wanted these men to convey, such
errors would have been irrelevant to Him.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:06:52 -0800
From: Cliff Lundberg <cliff@noevalley.com>
Subject: Re: where's the evolution?
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>Evolution does not work in either isolated or closed systems; it only works
>in open systems.
So if the solar system were all there was to the universe, there could
be no evolution? I don't grasp the preventive mechanism here. A closed
system can always be partitioned conceptually; then you've got two or more
systems, each open to the others.
>I've offered this challenge for years; no one has ever met the challenge.
Last year we had a challenger who kept offering $10,000 or so for some kind
of proof. He was fun for a little while.
Cliff Lundberg
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 21:41:35 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: where's the evolution?
Kevin L. O'Brien wrote:
>
>>Evolution does not work in either isolated or closed systems; it only
>>works in open systems.
>
Cliff Lundberg responded:
>
>So if the solar system were all there was to the universe, there could
>be no evolution?
>
No, because the solar system is itself a collection of systems, some open,
some closed. The open systems evolve, until they change to closed systems;
the closed systems may remain stable for a long period of time, but
eventually "degenerate" in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.
>
>I don't grasp the preventive mechanism here.
>
For a system to evolve it has to be able to exchange matter as well as
energy with its surroundings. Once a system becomes closed, it may continue
to evolve for a short time, but eventually evolution stops once the matter
in the system "degenerates" beyond a certain point. After that the system
may remain stable, especially if it contains a great deal of matter, but
finally matter degeneration reaches a point where the system ceases to
function.
Think of a system like a cell. As long as the cell remains
thermodynamically open -- exchanging both energy and matter with its
surroundings -- it not only lives but it can develop along whatever lines
its genetic makeup dictate. However, once the cell stops exchanging matter,
further development can continue only for a short time before the increase
in waste products and the decrease in food molecules causes the cell to shut
down all non-essential metabolic activity. At that point the cell can
continue to live for some time, but it will not develop any further.
Finally, when the amount of food particles decrease below the level needed
to keep the cell alive, it dies. The same is essentially true for a closed
system.
>
>A closed
>system can always be partitioned conceptually; then you've got two or more
>systems, each open to the others.
>
Exactly; in fact the more open systems a closed system contains, the longer
it can remain stable before maximum entropy is reached, at which point the
system ceases to function.
Take the earth's biosphere for example. The biosphere is as good a closed
system as you are likely to find in that it receives energy from the sun and
transmits energy in the form of infrared radiation into space, but the
amount of matter it receives or expells is negligable even over billions of
years. The biosphere itself has not evolved since mantle outgassing ceased
some 4 billion years ago (when it changed from an open system to a closed
system), but it has continued to function because it is composed of billions
of open systems, all exchanging matter and energy with each other and their
surroundings, and all evolving on their own. Because the matter that is
available is constantly being recycled, with very little of it
"degenerating" into useless forms, the biosphere could remain stable for
billions of years more. In fact, it will probably fail only when it no
longer receives enough energy from the sun to keep the various open systems
functioning. However, if energy exchange continued unabated, eventually the
amount of useful matter would diminish to the point where the open systems
will change into closed systems, then die, eventually leading to the death
of the biosphere itself.
>
(Andrew?) "Cummins" wrote:
>
>>I've offered this challenge for years; no one has ever met the challenge.
>
Cliff Lundberg responded:
>
>Last year we had a challenger who kept offering $10,000 or so for some kind
>of proof. He was fun for a little while.
>
That was Joseph Mastropaolo, who kept trying to get people to bet on
ridiculous wagers that he thought demonstrated how unlikely evolution would
be. He left when the list shunned him.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1351
********************************