>>>Paul Robson: Okay. Let's see how simple I can make it.
Evolutionists claim: Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, NOTE that they do not claim that energy is sufficient by itself to cause
evolution ["pouring gas over a car and setting it on fire will not drive a
car to the grocery store." is implying this]
>>>DNAunion: No. It is stating that those who rely solely on vague appeals
to open-system thermodynamics to explain the ordering and organizing of
simple organics into a functioning cell are overlooking a key part of the
picture.
>>>Paul Robson: I don't think you get it.
"Creationists" (in general, NOT YOU specifically) repeatedly claim (see
almost ANYcreationist site,book or lecture) that Evolution violates the 2nd
law of Thermodynamics.
"Evolutionists" answer "no it doesn't because this is not a closed system"
(the corollary to which Creationists are referring, usually inaccurately).
BUT they do not appeal to OST as a method of explaining the ordering and
organizing of simple organics into a functioning cell.
It is a RESPONSE to the claim that 2LT is violated by evolution.
*******************************
DNAunion: Okay, I think I see what *you* are saying here. The
"evolutionists" are not attempting to offer a *full explanation*, just enough
to show that the opponents claims are flawed at the conceptual level.
However, since I (with good reason) state that evolution was the driving
force behind the origin of life (the two are linked and should not be
decoupled), I have always considered their "vague appeal to open systems
thermodynamics" as an "explanation" also for the origin of life - whether
explicitly stated as such or not (if they want to propose more in relation to
the OOL, then let them: but I haven't heard a convincing argument yet).
And my discussions on the net have reinforced this view: whenever I go to a
new site and mention the 2nd law in relation to the OOL for the first time,
the first response I get is along the lines of "You Creationists never learn
- that problem was solved years ago: the Earth is an open system and received
plenty of energy from the Sun to drive the increase in order". That's it:
case closed: no need for further discussion: I'm an idiot fighting a battle
that was lost decades ago (or so my opponents would have us believe).
********************************
>>>Paul Robson: Now. I agree that, by itself OST do not explain this
ordering and organising. But no "evolutionist" to my knowledge has ever said
it did.
********************************
DNAunion: I believe that "evolutionists" one meets in discussion groups on
the net DO say this.
Yours seems a fairly typical response: "no evolutionist ever said that X did
it alone". When probabilities are mentioned, "no evolutionist ever said that
chance did it alone". When the 2nd law is mentioned, "no evolutionist ever
said that open-system thermodynamics did it alone". One of the problems is,
we can never get evolutionists to tell us what those other things were! If X
didn't do it alone, then tell us what Y and Z were. Until then, the
"evolutionists" counter arguments are vague and hollow.
*********************************
>>>Paul Robson: This argument is used by Creationists (again generally, not
you specifically) as a distractor against the open/closed system argument,
because pointing out the nature of open/closed systems knocks their initial
claim out.
*******************************
DNAunion: I disagree. This sounds to me like another vague appeal to
open-system thermodynamics.
Even evolution cannot be explained by such: for life to evolve, there needs
to be preexisting coupling mechanisms (or sufficient information in the form
of DNA and the proteins that are generated according to its blueprint) to
overcome the natural tendency towards increasing disorder.
Saying that the Earth is an open system, alone, does not "knock their initial
claim out". It only shows that in "simple" cases (here meaning things less
organized/complex than a functioning cell) the natural tendency towards
greater disorder can be overcome simply, and that therefore, *in principle*,
nature can overcome that tendency when it comes to evolution also. But the
story needs to be filled in: the "in principle" part needs to be fleshed out
to "in the real world". (For example, it is *in principle* possible for a
human to count by ones from one to one octillion - there are no thresholds
nor are there any obstacles involved in moving from any single number to the
next - but *in reality*, a person could not complete the task. Not the most
relevant example, but it does point out the difference). For extant life, it
is fleshed out: evolution is possible because of open-system thermodynamics
AND the preexisting coupling mechanisms associated with biochemistry. For
the transition from simple organic molecules into a functioning cell, it is
not: "in principle" has yet to be fleshed out.
****************************
>>>Paul Robson: Thus we have two responses : (i) Open and Closed are the
same "because the law has been tested on open systems" (Morris) (ii) Evolving
junkyard argument which is what you are talking about here e.g. OST explains
the "whole thing".
Who are the "those" in your sentence .....
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell" (my emphasis)
if you can't actually produce anyone who says this isn't your argument an
irrelevant distraction ?
*****************************
DNAunion: Sorry, I mark a whole lot of stuff when I read material, but not
everything. I have not considered prior to now marking such comments: and I
don't intend to go back and reread everything I already have read to find
such instances. I think, though, that if you - or anyone else - follow these
kinds of discussions on the net long enough, that you will run across such a
vague claim frequently: I have. And in fact, I believe you - even knowing
that there needs to be more than just open-systems thermodynamics - did a bit
of this yourself above when you claimed the counter-Creationist argument that
Earth is an open system is all that is needed to "knock their initial claims
out". In general, if "evolutionists" believe other things are needed, then
why in the world don't they state so when they are countering the claims of
Creationists?
Also, if OST is not sufficient in itself to "increae the order" enough to
generate the first functioning cell - AS EVERY SINGLE EVOLUTIONIST KNOWS -
then what else was there? Who from among all of them can flesh out this *in
principle* explanation?
And no, I don't consider my pointing out that "evolutionists" have not
provided a convincing explanation - and that what is typically offered, in my
experience, is the vague appeal to the Earth's having received energy from
the Sun - is an "irrelevant distraction".
******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 12:56:20 EST