In a message dated 12/11/00 02:31:52 GMT Standard Time, DNAunion writes:
Paul Robson:
I have read of many creationists, though who make the
argument along the lines of "Well, if being an open system
isn't a problem for evolution, why don't cars evolve from junk
in a junkyard open to energy" ; something sounding
remarkably in the ball park "vague appeals to OST"
If you cannot produce one person who "solely relies" on
OST to do this I will treat your claims of "frequency" as
an absurdity.
**********************
DNAunion: Do as you feel fit. However, I already pointed
out how you yourself put forth a form of this argument when
you said that appealing to open-system thermodynamics
"knocked out" the Creationists' claims. You did not mention
anything other than OST.
Paul Robson:
Thanks DNA. I now know it is your limited reading comprehension.
I claim it knocks out creationists claim about 2LT being "violated
by evolution". Your claim is
"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) "
You have to have pretty low levels of literacy to think I "rely
solely on OST to organise functioning cells" from this statement.
I don't even mention cells at all.
I know you think I am being abusive when I question your literacy
but this makes me think you either can't/won't understand, or don't
bother to read what I write. You write "this is a form of this
argument" ; it quite clearly isn't. For it to be "a form of this
argument" it has to say something like "I think OST explains
the existence of functioning cells from organics on its own".
It ought to be obvious to almost anyone that I was writing about
rebutting the claims made in almost every Creationist book about
OST.
DNAUnion:
Second, here is something Chris Cogan recently wrote, and my reply:
"Ccogan: Since reproduction can occur either as a mere catalytic
process, a template-using process, or as a process of creation
and assembly of components (as in virus replication), there are
plenty of ways in which the Sun's energy, and the energy from
the core of the Earth itself, etc., can promote reproduction
once this energy has brought about enough natural "mixing"
of existing components to produce the first simple and
suitable replicator. "
Paul Robson:
You claim
"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) "
This appears to be a statement about the creation of the first
simple and suitable replicator. [As you only gave a small amount
the last few words appear to be the only indication of context].
It says "the energy has brought enough mixing to produce the first
simple replicator" (paraphrase).
It doesn't appear to be a claim about "functioning cells".
To fit your description, he (she ?) has to claim that this
"natural mixing" SOLELY produces a FUNCTIONING CELL.
You can't read, can you DNAUnion ? You don't know
what the word "solely" means, do you ? You don't know
what a "functioning cell" is do you ? You just see what
you want to see, read what you *think* is there and then
reply to it.
DNAunion: First, you listed three "independent" methods of
reproduction, as if any one of the three can stand by itself.
But these are not independent. "[A]ssembly of components
(as in virus replication)" does not occur without there first
being "a template-processing process", which does not occur
without a "catalytic process". Note also that you later state,
"even the simplest catalytic process is "code-driven,"", which
seems to further entangle these "independent" processes of
reproduction.
Paul Robson:
I fail to see what this response has to do with your claim ;
which I now believe you cannot substantiate.
DNA Union:
Second, you have glazed over some of the most important steps
on the way to life: how the first self-replicators arose. You have
basically done what Paul Robson claims no evolutionist does!
You have presented a *vague appeal* to open-system thermodynamics
("there are plenty of ways in which the Sun's energy, and the energy
from the core of the Earth itself, etc., can promote reproduction once
this energy has brought about enough natural "mixing" of existing
components to produce the first simple and suitable replicator.")
Paul Robson:
You see, its difficult to tell if this is dishonesty, ignorance, wish
fulfilment or just plain idiocy.
I agree wholeheartedly that this first part could classify as a
"vague appeal to OST". Unfortunately it fails on the "solely
responsible for producing a functioning cell" part.
It seems to be that Chris is claiming that energy from the sun
would be sufficient to produce a simple replicator. For this to
fit your allegedly "frequently" stated argument there has to
be rather more than a simple replicator.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 15:52:58 EST