Thursday, December 16, 2010

Ard Louis and Vitalism

I once collected and cataloged the various arguments for evolution. It is fascinating to see smart people constructing elaborate schemes for the unlikely. One of the subtle, yet no less bizarre, arguments is the use of vitalism as a null hypothesis, a variation of which the brilliant physicist Ard Louis constructed recently. First, here’s what I wrote about this a year and half ago:

Recent epigenetics findings highlight a problematic trend. Evolution faces ever increasing scientific challenges as its predictions continue to go wrong. All the while evolutionists, for the most part, continue to issue non responsive responses. Most of what I have heard from evolutionists regarding epigenetics falls into the usual categories of denialism, but one evolutionist told me that epigenetics poses no problems for evolution because the mechanisms are, well, just that—mechanisms.

This argument is very simple: The epigenetics mechanisms are natural, and therefore they fit well within evolutionary theory. This argument draws a (false) dichotomy between vitalism and evolution. In this banal view of nature, vitalism is evolution’s foil—if a mechanism isn’t violating natural law, then it evolved.

In his 2005 book Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature, Keith Thomson uses this argument (see Science’s Blind Spot for discussion). Could this be an emerging argument for evolution? If so, it demonstrates how desperate the defense has become.

Desparate may not be the right word for the defense and promotion of evolution. Bizarre might be more accurate. Consider this latest use the vitalism strawman by Ard Louis:



Here Louis first explains that complex molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, are able to assemble and operate successfully everyday inspite of a tremendous entropy barrier. And these machines assemble and operate according to natural law—there is no vitalism here, no divine finger adjusting the cogs and turning the crank.

This of course is the story of biology. Against all odds, it works. And this is a fundamental problem for evolution. The tremendous entropy barrier that life defeats is a continual demonstration before our very eyes of the extreme difficulty that it just happened to fall together.

It is the height of absurdity to use this as an argument for evolutionary solutions. When I turn the key, my car starts up. What are the odds all that could just happen? Very low indeed, which means it probably didn’t just happen to happen. It is exceedingly unlikely that natural laws could produce such an arrangement.

None of this is to say that evolution is impossible—it just means that evolution is not where the science is pointing.

Louis’s argument is an echo of seventeenth century philosopher Rene Descartes who urged evolutionary ideas because of the evident power of natural law. Yes god created humanity, but individuals are born and grow according to law. From people to plants, we observe incredible development brought about by nature. So too, the continental rationalist argued, we should understand the origin of the world as strictly naturalistic as well.

Decades later the influential Thomas Burnet showed how the Cartesian view is theologically mandated. Rather than creating a clock that doesn’t work and needs constant adjustment, the greater clockmaker makes a clock that works by itself. Likewise, the Anglican cleric argued, the greater god makes a world that operates on its own.

It is the ultimate example of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, yet in this case the victory is only in the minds of evolutionists. The routine defeat of astonishing levels of entropy is easily converted into evidence for evolution. The level of denial is staggering. Religion drives science, and it matters.

87 comments:

  1. "The tremendous entropy barrier that life defeats is a continual demonstration before our very eyes of the extreme difficulty that it just happened to fall together."

    Entropy barrier? What is the entropic barrier to RNA polymerizing on clay due to dehydration? The entropy of membrane formation? Of formation of organelles by endosymbiosis? Of gene duplication? Of the transition to oxygen-utilization? Of the transition to walking upright? Can you give us a calculation?

    Until these questions are answered, the entropic 'problem' isn't science. It isn't even an argument, just a re-iteration of the plea that things look too complex to have evolved. Where have we heard that before?

    On the other hand, we can see bio-complexity increase against entropy all the time-in development, and in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BobC,

    More of the standard begging the question from you.

    When will evolutionists discover the principles of statistical mechanics and combinatorial dependencies?
    Most likely, with this level of denial of reality, never.

    When will they understand the concept of "begging the question", such as you have done here?
    Just as unlikely as they will understand the origins of DNA or proteins or ...

    "...the entropic 'problem' isn't science."

    ROTFLMAO
    "...just a re-iteration of the plea that things look too complex to have evolved. Where have we heard that before?"

    Your statement is a strawman indicating that you still don't get it.
    Thus that re-iteration -at least the real version- will be necessary as long as Darwinists continue to deny reality and fail to understand the least particle of statistical mechanics and it's application to biology, or the endless array of combinatorial dependencies found in bio systems.

    Keep on begging the question, Bob, we've grown to expect nothing less of you.

    The lights are on, the music is blaring but nobodies home in Darwiener land!

    The light may go on some day if you stop wanting Darwinism to be true at all costs, to protect your false sense of security in your untenable world-view.

    ReplyDelete
  4. RobertC: Can you give us a calculation?

    Gary: When will evolutionists discover the principles of statistical mechanics and combinatorial dependencies?

    Um, Gary, you forgot the calculations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. CH, in an earlier post I asked you to provide "good" examples of science, since you have made it quite clear you think that evolution is "bad" science. Based on your position then, it does not seem unreasonable for you to provide specific examples. It would be helpful in better understanding your perspective on science.

    Instead you replied with:

    Well I think it is hardly controversial that good science should include (i) reasonably plausible explanations, (ii) forthright assessment of how one's theory compares with the evidence, and (iii) acknowledgement of one's metaphysics. Evolution lacks all three of these attributes.

    I then I asked you again to provide actual examples,, but so far you haven't.

    Again, I'm not trying to trip you up - I think this is a fair and simple request, and one that you (especially with your qualifications), would easily be able to answer. But why then do you seem so disclined to do so?

    I also asked you to acknowledge and clarify your own metaphysics, but I won't hold my breath on that one...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gary the yappy little puppy said...

    When will evolutionists discover the principles of statistical mechanics and combinatorial dependencies?
    Most likely, with this level of denial of reality, never.


    Well Gary, when you're done peeing on the rug again, maybe you could provide this devastating evidence from statistical mechanics that proves ToE wrong.

    We've only been asking you to back up your claims for the last three months, but all you ever do is whimper and slink away.

    How do you expect the IDiots to make any headway with that kind of cowardly non-response?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've read a few of your posts now and I honestly don't quite see where you stand against evolution. Epigenetics as evidence against evolution? What is this? No one in the world is able to form a constructive argument as to why epigenetics disproves evolution.

    I think the basic thing I don't understand is what you favor in evolution's stead. Creationism, intelligent design?

    A long time ago, people started to study physics. They developed theories-- theories of gravity, forces, momentum, etc. And each theory applied well to most realistic models of motion. However, as studies became more and more sophisticated, they found exceptions and amendments to the "rules"... light has mass, time is speed-relative, etc. SCIENCE works by forming approximations of reality and then expanding and perfecting those approximations further and further, much like how pi was originally only several digits long and is now beyond millions. But the second people realized light had mass, there weren't a bunch of people going "well see now, you were wrong all along, why should we trust you?" Wait, no, there probably were. Oh, that's right... We don't hear much about them anymore in history, do we?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, with respect to all this entropic-barrier business, take a physical chemistry class and you'll realize that we've understood most of that for quite a while now. Biochemical systems are capable of overcoming this barrier-- in fact, it's pretty much a cell's job to do just that, over and over, in different ways.

    A chemist's concern is how these processes work, and the chemist has done well to illustrate the energetic mechanisms by which they do.

    An evolutionist's job is to show that these processes have common roots, are employed by homologous components when homologous components are needed or by slightly varied components when the system is forced to carry on in a new situation, and apparently to spend countless years convincing charlatan critics that he isn't just making all of this up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Did that person actually use the term "null hypothesis"? That is just wrong. "Vitalism" cannot be a null hypothesis. Vitalism asserts that something other than just physical and chemical phenomena determine the processes of living organisms.

    A null hypothesis is one that explains the data only as the result of random effects. The null hypothesis for evolution (and creation) is Epicureanism (as described in Sober 2008, you have the book). And null hypotheses don't create dichotomies, but the way you make the alternative hypotheses can.

    ...as Light Remaining Light, I can make no sense of what you said in that old post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Evolutionists" have known statistical mechanics quite well for quite long, thank you. The best courses in biochemistry take quite a focus on the energetics of biochemical reactions, coupling and such concepts. We are quite aware.

    Creationists don't seem to grasp that when they say "evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics" then it would mean that all of life today would be breaking such laws. It is however easy to see that such is not true. We obtain the energy necessary to produce order from our food. There is no reason why such energy would be any different for a diverging subpopulation selected by some environment (evolution) as for just reproducing an already existing population.

    Think about it. If, after truly thinking about it, you can still see a reasonable difference, I would like to hear about it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hope you guys know that there is more to a reaction than just entropy. Right? So, the molecules assembling into some complex structure are not doing so "against all odds." The delta-G (overall change of energetic potential) for the reaction has to take into account both enthalpy and entropy (and temperature).

    So, this thing assembles as it should, because the change in enthalpy is enough for it to overcome the loss (change) of entropy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In order to overcome emtropy, organisms need to controlthe energy flow very precisely. This is what machines do. But machines were made by clever people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. RobertC:

    ===
    Entropy barrier?
    ===

    Yes, entropy barrier.

    ===
    What is the entropic barrier to RNA polymerizing on clay due to dehydration? ... Can you give us a calculation?

    Until these questions are answered, the entropic 'problem' isn't science. It isn't even an argument, just a re-iteration of the plea that things look too complex to have evolved. Where have we heard that before?
    ===

    On the one hand the evolutionist skips the entire point of the OP and moves straight to his favorite argument. On the other hand, he demonstrates the bankruptcy of his favorite argument. Like trying to hold a rational discourse with a 4-year old, one hardly knows where to begin. I guess I'll take the bait.

    One of the most common arguments evolutionists make, as exemplified here, is that unless you can prove them wrong, then they are right. They propose an unlikely theory and claim it to be a fact, you point out scientific problems, and they say "so what, you don't have absolute proof." Unless you can derive the evolutionary pathways (which they cannot), and then in so doing demonstrate conclusively where and how they fail, then you have nothing, and evolution remains a fact. From Darwin's book to the blogs, it is a common theme in evolutionary thought.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Last Remaining Light:

    ===
    I've read a few of your posts now and I honestly don't quite see where you stand against evolution.
    ===

    On its false predictions.

    ===
    Epigenetics as evidence against evolution? What is this? No one in the world is able to form a constructive argument as to why epigenetics disproves evolution.
    ===

    I didn't say it disproves evolution. Why do you ignore problems merely because they don't *disprove* your theory?

    ===
    I think the basic thing I don't understand is what you favor in evolution's stead. Creationism, intelligent design?
    ===

    I favor semi-empiricism (Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, etc).


    ===
    A long time ago, people started to study physics. They developed theories-- theories of gravity, forces, momentum, etc. And each theory applied well to most realistic models of motion. However, as studies became more and more sophisticated, they found exceptions and amendments to the "rules"... light has mass, time is speed-relative, etc. SCIENCE works by forming approximations of reality and then expanding and perfecting those approximations further and further, much like how pi was originally only several digits long and is now beyond millions. But the second people realized light had mass, there weren't a bunch of people going "well see now, you were wrong all along, why should we trust you?" Wait, no, there probably were. Oh, that's right... We don't hear much about them anymore in history, do we?
    ===

    So a theory that produces a litany of false predictions and calls upon unlikely events is OK?


    ===
    Also, with respect to all this entropic-barrier business, take a physical chemistry class and you'll realize that we've understood most of that for quite a while now. Biochemical systems are capable of overcoming this barrier-- in fact, it's pretty much a cell's job to do just that, over and over, in different ways.
    ===

    Did you read the OP?


    ===
    An evolutionist's job is to show that these processes have common roots, are employed by homologous components when homologous components are needed or by slightly varied components when the system is forced to carry on in a new situation, and apparently to spend countless years convincing charlatan critics that he isn't just making all of this up.
    ===

    Again, I don't think you actually read the OP.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Negative Entropy:

    ===
    Creationists don't seem to grasp that when they say "evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics" then it would mean that all of life today would be breaking such laws.
    ===

    Well at the risk of defending creationists, the claim that "evolution is unlikely given the laws of thermodynamics" does *not* imply that "all of life today is unlikely given the laws of thermodynamics," any more than the claim that "the evolution of my car is unlikely given the laws of thermodynamics" implies that "the operation of my car today is unlikely given the laws of thermodynamics."


    ===
    We obtain the energy necessary to produce order from our food. There is no reason why such energy would be any different for a diverging subpopulation selected by some environment (evolution) as for just reproducing an already existing population.

    Think about it. If, after truly thinking about it, you can still see a reasonable difference, I would like to hear about it.
    ===

    I think you missed the point of the OP, which is that the evolutionary argument that

    (i) because life operates according to natural law, doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, etc, that therefore

    (ii) this somehow underwrites the evolutionary narrative.

    is silly.


    ===
    I hope you guys know that there is more to a reaction than just entropy. Right? So, the molecules assembling into some complex structure are not doing so "against all odds." The delta-G (overall change of energetic potential) for the reaction has to take into account both enthalpy and entropy (and temperature).

    So, this thing assembles as it should, because the change in enthalpy is enough for it to overcome the loss (change) of entropy.
    ===

    So therefore it evolved?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hunter, to RobertC:

    On the one hand the evolutionist skips the entire point of the OP and moves straight to his favorite argument.

    To Last Remaining Light:
    Did you read the OP?
    …..
    Again, I don't think you actually read the OP.


    To Negative Entropy:

    I think you missed the point of the OP, which is that the evolutionary argument that

    (i) because life operates according to natural law, doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, etc, that therefore

    (ii) this somehow underwrites the evolutionary narrative.

    is silly.


    As an empiricist, I see repeated references to the OP. As a rationalist, I hypothesize that there is a pattern here. Perhaps (another hypothesis) the miscommunication is not a failure of his readers, but of the writer.

    If one can accept that life operates according to natural law, it follows that one’s mind may be open to the proposition that the history of life operated according to natural law. The writer might have given his readers credit for taking that message from the posted video, and then have made a more lucid and compelling counter-argument...in the OP.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thorton:

    "LOL! I see your ability to count to five is just as good as your understanding of actual evolutionary theory. Nice of you to pass such a harsh judgment on someone BTW. Isn't that God's job? I suppose since you already willingly lie for Jesus you might as well try to usurp his authority too."
    ====

    Evolutionary defenders = the ultimate Meta-Physicists
    (anarchyonline.wiki.com)

    "Forget all that you have learned. Forget all that you have seen. As a Meta-Physicist you will know all there really is. You will learn how to harness your rage and your anger so you may use it against others or for the benefit of yourself. Through your growing cosmic knowledge of the universe and nano technology, you will be able to summon a manifestation to fight for you and a manifestation to heal your body. Technology has given us the weapon in our hands with which we can fight, but true power and knowledge lies in the form of our manifestations. Control your anger so you may further increase the abilities of your manifestations, thereby increasing its anger. All the non-believers shall taste that anger! Those that face you shall be stripped of their nano-based abilities, be frozen where they stand, and be bombarded with your energy. The fate of all those that face you is written in time. As a Meta-Physicist you will show them their maker. You are at once, both the beginning and the end.


    I couldn't have written a more articulate description your group's thinking any better than this guy did.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cornelius,

    Leave alone thermodynamics. We have already discussed it here and you couldn't muster a coherent argument.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Like trying to hold a rational discourse with a 4-year old, one hardly knows where to begin."

    Bit of career advice: your peers don't enjoy being insulted. And I do count you as a peer, unlike many people on this blog. I respect you have a PhD in biophysics, and have a strong mind. Lately, your tone is closer to that of your supporters like Gary there. Some things you've said to me lately:

    Accusations of fraud: "Evolutionists have swept de novo genes under the rug" Insults: "This time your argument is not absurd, it merely is ludicrous. Unfortunately it is typical." "Hilarious" "ridiculous" "unbelievable" Irrational fourth grader, etc, etc....

    This seems especially strange, in that you made a strong argument that entropy is a problem for evolution, did you not? I guess I was supposed to stay on the vitalism topic, and let your interpretation of the science pass by? I feel the science is germane to the quality of the argument made here.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "One of the most common arguments evolutionists make, as exemplified here, is that unless you can prove them wrong, then they are right. They propose an unlikely theory and claim it to be a fact, you point out scientific problems, and they say "so what, you don't have absolute proof."

    I didn't even couch my reply in terms of falsificationism, I just asked how you might quantitatively demonstrate entropy barrier are insurmountable and what empirical data defends this position. Anyone can go back and read my post-it is the first one.

    Why is it so bizarre that when you make a strong claim, that entropy is a problem for evolution ("And this is a fundamental problem for evolution. The tremendous entropy barrier that life defeats is a continual demonstration before our very eyes of the extreme difficulty that it just happened to fall together") that I ask for some evidence?

    Is that such a bizarre, petulant request?

    "you point out scientific problems, and they say "so what, you don't have absolute proof."

    I never asked for 'absolute' proof, and don't philosophically believe any such thing would exist (falsification and all-data could always falsify a hypothesis). I merely asked for some defense of this insurmountable entropy barrier you assert.

    Is it so bizzare for a scientist to provide proof of his position, or ask his peers to defend theirs? That's Madness!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Since we're pointing out flaws, I would say yours is the willingness to dispense with empiricism and assert positions (too complex, too great an entropy barrier, too small a region in sequence space, falsified predictions) with not a shred of data. Then when we ask for data, you launch into a philosophical discourse on falsificationism.

    No matter what your scientific philosophy is, you have to back your position! Even if we somehow dispense with hypothesis testing and falsification, if we moderate empiricism, we have to have support for a claim.

    I might also help to state your position:

    Is it: the false dichotomy between natural and unnatural, couched in the strawman of vitalism, allows evolution to persist as a theory, despite perceived problems, such as epigenetics and entropy?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cornelius,

    Did you erase my comment? May I know why?

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Negative Entropy, If Cornelius deletes a post, it says "This post has been removed by the blog administrator." There seems to be either a bug or a filter that causes some posts to disappear. I've found it's usually related to having part of a url in the body of the text. Try modifying or url references and posting again. Sometimes it just takes several tries.

    Cornelius does not censor dissenting views, though he sometimes removes posts for vulgarity. In my book, this puts his integrity miles above any other ID or creationist blogger I know of.

    ReplyDelete
  28. But I had no URL ... but sure, I had a weird message about "url too long". The post appeared anyway, so I assumed it was all right. A few minutes later it was gone. Will try later, I hope I can be as clear as I was then.

    ReplyDelete
  29. oleg:

    ===
    Leave alone thermodynamics. We have already discussed it here and you couldn't muster a coherent argument.
    ===

    So evolutionists make one of their fallacious arguments, and when you point it out, you get all manner of fallacious responses.

    ReplyDelete
  30. OK, Now it tells me that the commend went through, but then it deletes it.

    Whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Negative Entropy:

    "Did you erase my comment? May I know why? "

    No, but we have had occasional problems with this google s/w. Best to paste in your comments, not type directly. I only delete comments with foul language, or spam.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I hope this gets through now.

    1. I think the problem here Cornelius is twofold. First, on the part of the person in the video, who is presenting a very simplified version of the argument. I can see why you would reject it as it is. Second, your reliance in such oversimplified explanations.

    2. However, I presented you with a two-part answer that, given the background in your profile, should take away the apparent magical leap that you see in the "argument":

    (a) A question: How is the energy requirement of reproducing an already existing population different from that of reproducing a selected subpopulation?

    (b) The energy above is referred to as enthalpy in the equation that describes the possibility of a reaction taking place. A flagellum does not assemble "against all odds" as you suggest. The flagellum assembles because the enthalpy for the reaction overcomes the "entropy times temperature" part of the equation. Enthalpy also helps other reactions, such as specific biochemical reactions, full biochemical pathways, full metabolism, reproduction, and, yes, evolution.

    Thus, you seem to ignore enthalpy in your discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Negative Entropy:

    "I hope this gets through now."
    ====

    I just tried to link to your blog here and it went thru, but when you posted it deleted. Whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Cornelius Hunter:

    "I only delete comments with foul language, or spam."

    and then this,

    Thorton:

    "Another post of mine just vanished.

    If someone doesn't fix the disappearing post problem this whole blog can kiss off."
    ====

    Ah, now that makes sense. *eyes rolling*

    ReplyDelete
  36. ... So, this thing assembles as it should, because the change in enthalpy is enough for it to overcome the loss (change) of entropy.
    ===

    So therefore it evolved?


    =====

    Nope, therefore you forget enthalpy in your discourse. Enthalpy is what makes both these reactions, flagellum assemblage and evolution, possible.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks Eocene, as you can see, a shorter version seems to be still here now. Hopefully it is clear enough. The one in my blog is not the original either. Truly, the first one was very clear, but I can't remember the wording very well. So be it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hunter wrote: So evolutionists make one of their fallacious arguments, and when you point it out, you get all manner of fallacious responses.

    Totally off the mark, Cornelius. Creationists make the fallacious argument about evolution being ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics. Granville Sewell is probably the latest to do so.

    And when they are given a thorough explanation why their argument does not work they just change the argument and say But can ANYTHING happen in an open system?

    Just retire the stupid argument already.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Janfeld:

    ===
    CH: "OK, ummm, semi-conductor research. There, I said it."

    Thanks. Based on this, what changes would be needed to evolutionary biological research to make it more akin to semi-conductor research?
    ===

    (i) Provides reasonably plausible explanations rather than absurdities, (ii) provide forthright assessment of how evolution compares with the evidence rather than the continual stream of misrepresentations, and (iii) acknowledge the metaphysics.



    ===
    then for him evolution must not be true.
    ===

    Why is that true? Unfortunately, this is yet more of the "motive-mongering" that evolutionists regularly practice. They make a false claim, and when you point it out all they can do is contrive false motives that "must be there."



    ===
    I'm not going to guess what CH's real motives are for running this blog, but I'm not sure it has much to do with science. He seems to have no interest in pursuing research or moving science forward - no, his job is to cast doubt, to dismantle, to pull apart. Perhaps he thinks that if he can cast sufficient doubt about evolution, then perhaps that would eventually cause a person to also evaluate their faith (and as an evangelical Christian at a Bible college, you can be sure that evanglism is central to their worldview).
    ===

    So you misrepresent science, make false claims driven by religion, and its my fault.

    ReplyDelete
  40. CH: "Why is that true? Unfortunately, this is yet more of the "motive-mongering" that evolutionists regularly practice. They make a false claim, and when you point it out all they can do is contrive false motives that "must be there."

    Motive-mongering? Isn't that what you are doing with your whole "religion drives science and it matters" schtick? The point is that CH also has metaphysical motives (which he acknowleges) and that also drive his science. Whether that matters or not is anybody's guess.

    CH: "So you misrepresent science, make false claims driven by religion, and its my fault."

    What did I misrepresent about science and what are the false claims about religion? All I'm saying is that your religious beliefs are a motivation and an influence in how you approach science and how you run this blog. Given your fundamentalist-oriented beliefs that is normal and to be expected. You may deny it but I don't think many people will find that denial credible. Why not just say it - you think the Christian God either created or designed life as we know it, period. That is your metaphysical belief and it influences everything you think and know about science.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Janfeld: Thanks. Based on this, what changes would be needed to evolutionary biological research to make it more akin to semi-conductor research?


    Cornelius: (i) Provides reasonably plausible explanations rather than absurdities, (ii) provide forthright assessment of how evolution compares with the evidence rather than the continual stream of misrepresentations, and (iii) acknowledge the metaphysics.

    Cornelius, what metaphysics does semi-conductor research acknowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Negative Entropy:

    ===
    A flagellum does not assemble "against all odds" as you suggest. The flagellum assembles because the enthalpy for the reaction overcomes the "entropy times temperature" part of the equation.
    ===

    No, enthalpy is not the silver bullet. Yes, flagellum assembly is a reduction in free energy but only because the right arrangements have been made. The proteins are expressed and delivered to the right place, the cellular environment is enclosed and not subject to dilution processes, and so forth. If you placed the ingredients in a warm little pond it would not work.

    The evolutionary argument that (i) because we observe biological systems functioning and defeating entropic barriers, (ii) therefore evolution is the appropriate and likely means of origin is illogical. It is silly--it doesn't make sense.

    ===
    Enthalpy also helps other reactions, such as ..., and, yes, evolution.
    ===

    No, this is ridiculous. Cells don't spontaneously form because, hey, there's enthalpy too. In the hands of evolution science is manipulated and turned upside down.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Derick Childress:

    "Cornelius, what metaphysics does semi-conductor research acknowledge?"

    Uniformity and parsimony.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cornelius,

    You keep missing the point and getting back to the wrong idea.

    The evolutionary argument that (i) because we observe biological systems functioning and defeating entropic barriers, (ii) therefore evolution is the appropriate and likely means of origin is illogical. It is silly--it doesn't make sense.

    This is not "the evolutionary argument." This is not even my answer to your "problem of entropy."

    The argument is that if entropy was a problem the same problem would be there for life today. Why? Because (and you keep missing this part) the very same energy necessary for life to "overcome" entropy today is that one necessary for evolution to operate. We have such energy.

    No, this is ridiculous. Cells don't spontaneously form because, hey, there's enthalpy too. In the hands of evolution science is manipulated and turned upside down.

    Of course cells form because there is enthalpy. What do you think happens during the processes of cell duplication and such? Magic?

    (continuing below with your first part because otherwise the posts might be swallowed by the entropy of blogger)

    ReplyDelete
  45. ...

    No, enthalpy is not the silver bullet.

    Is it not? then what is it?

    Yes, flagellum assembly is a reduction in free energy but only because the right arrangements have been made. The proteins are expressed and delivered to the right place, the cellular environment is enclosed and not subject to dilution processes, and so forth. If you placed the ingredients in a warm little pond it would not work.

    As far as I know, the warm little pond is about abiogenesis, not about evolution proper, AND, as far as I know, nobody has suggested that the ingredients for flagella appeared in such warm little pond for the first time.

    But more on target: are you suggesting that "the right arrangements," and the "delivery," and "the cellular environment" don't use energy, and don't have anything to do with enthalpy at all? Do they form magically then? How come then that we have laws of thermodynamics if these systems so obviously and happily violate them?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cornelius Hunter said...

    The evolutionary argument that (i) because we observe biological systems functioning and defeating entropic barriers, (ii) therefore evolution is the appropriate and likely means of origin is illogical. It is silly--it doesn't make sense.


    That's because no one in the scientific community ever used that as an argument for evolutionary theory. It's another silly and senseless strawman that was pulled straight from your place where the sun doesn't shine.

    You do seem to have an unlimited supply of them I must admit. Have you ever considered a career as a writer for the National Inquirer?

    ReplyDelete
  47. oleg:

    "Just retire the stupid argument already. "

    Let me tell you what Oleg believes. Oleg believes that life spontaneously arose. In fact, Oleg believes everything spontaneously arose. But this is not all. Oleg not only believes everything spontaneously arose, but he believes this is an obvious, compelling, no-brainer, conclusion. Those who doubt it have no scientific basis. This is what Oleg believes.

    Now Oleg agrees there are huge entropic hills to climb. Taking the earth in isolation, Oleg agrees that it would be unlikely for life to spontaneously arise. But he believes that if you include the sun, so you are looking at the sun-earth system, then all is well, and life spontaneously arising becomes likely, as if the sun's energy is the magic bullet to life spontaneously arising.

    And when confronted with their own beliefs, their only response is "prove it wrong." So they make the unfounded claim their idea is a fact, provide no proof, and mandate that their idea is not only a fact, but a fact by default. The only way they will admit failure is with absolute proof of the negative, which is virtually impossible.

    I don't blame evolutionists for not saying this out loud. I wouldn't want to admit to such folly. But perhaps I have misunderstood Oleg.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Janfeld:

    ===
    Motive-mongering? Isn't that what you are doing with your whole "religion drives science and it matters" schtick?
    ===

    So the evolutionist says god wouldn't do it that way, I point it out, and the evolutionist says I have hidden motives and says *I'm* the one who is motive mongering. Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

    ReplyDelete
  49. CH: "So the evolutionist says god wouldn't do it that way, I point it out, and the evolutionist says I have hidden motives and says *I'm* the one who is motive mongering. Folks, you can't make this stuff up"

    I'm not saying that evolutionists may not have some kind of pre-conceived axioms...what I'm trying to say is that you (CH) also have your own metaphysical biases (which you acknowledge exist) and these also influence and color the way you view science/evolution. But somehow you seem to think you are neutral and your view of the science somehow remains purely empirical and pure. Of course nobody is buying this and your inability to acknowledge seriously hurts your credibility.

    Besides, why not question how God would or would not do something? Given that God has putatively revealed himself and his methods in the Bible, why not ask whether this revealed God matches with what we observe in the natural world? If there is Intelligent Design there is an Intelligent Designer and it is fair game to ask these kinds of questions? (and as others have so carefully explained, evolution does not need these questions answered to stand on its own - again somehow CH is incapable of comprehending).

    I think what makes CH uncomfortable is that the kind of Designer implied from the real world (if one was to assume that, which I'm not sure I necessarily do), does not mesh very well at all with the revealed God of the Bible. One the one hand with have a God who is anxious to reveal Himself to the world through His word, his "son" etc...yet on the other hand we have a Designer God that seems to work in riddles, is elusive and hidden. Curious eh?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Cornelius Hunter said...

    And when confronted with their own beliefs, their only response is "prove it wrong." So they make the unfounded claim their idea is a fact, provide no proof, and mandate that their idea is not only a fact, but a fact by default. The only way they will admit failure is with absolute proof of the negative, which is virtually impossible


    Wow CH, your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of how actual evolutionary theory is supported is amazing. It's as if you're deliberately pushing your ridiculous strawmen version just to try and score empty rhetorical points. That probably gets a rise out of the Fundy mouth-breathers in your audience, but do you think it impresses the scientific community?

    Oh well, if blustering anti-science rhetoric is all you can muster, carry on. In case you haven't noticed, the scientific community has no difficulties making new discoveries and understanding reality without you.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Negative Entropy said...

    It is not "therefore evolution is true." It is "therefore entropy is not a problem for evolution." These are two very different conclusions. If we wanted to argue why evolution is true, the answer is elsewhere.


    CH is quite fond of such 'bait and switch' childish rhetorical games. He thinks that no one will notice the chicanery, like his continual equivocation over the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution that explains the fact.

    What he fails to realize is just how pathetic it makes him look to those with any sort of science background. He's what the British call "too clever by half".

    ReplyDelete
  52. Janfeld:

    ===
    what I'm trying to say is that you (CH) also have your own metaphysical biases (which you acknowledge exist) and these also influence and color the way you view science/evolution.
    ===

    How so?


    ===
    But somehow you seem to think you are neutral and your view of the science somehow remains purely empirical and pure. Of course nobody is buying this and your inability to acknowledge seriously hurts your credibility.
    ===

    So you say it is a fact that everything in the universe arose on its own, I point out the obvious flaws in your thinking, and *I'm* the one with the credibility problem.


    ===
    Besides, why not question how God would or would not do something?
    ===

    But I never said you shouldn't.


    ===
    Given that God has putatively revealed himself and his methods in the Bible, why not ask whether this revealed God matches with what we observe in the natural world?
    ===

    Sure.


    ===
    I think what makes CH uncomfortable is that the kind of Designer implied from the real world ...
    ===

    No, I'm not the one here who is uncomfortable with the kind of Designer implied from the real world. This is precisely the arguments that underwrite evolution. Try reading the literature.

    It is amazing how evolutionists see themselves in their critics.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Eugen said...

    Good fight Cornelius-san !


    He's more like this I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi Thorton,

    Thanks. I am starting to doubt whether I should keep trying to get a real answer, or just give up. We will see tomorrow.

    Enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  55. ... Oh great. It deleted my comment too.

    Well... oh well. No time to rewrite. Maybe I'll chime in again later.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Negative Entropy said...

    Hi Thorton,

    Thanks. I am starting to doubt whether I should keep trying to get a real answer, or just give up. We will see tomorrow.

    Enjoy.


    Good luck with that. Some of us have been trying to get a real answer out of CH for six months.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Funny video, Thorton. I still think my first link is better suited.
    ---


    Last Remaining Light said...
    ... Oh great. It deleted my comment too.

    Well... oh well. No time to rewrite. Maybe I'll chime in again later.


    ---
    Mr.Light

    Try using Notepad to edit. Seems like Blogger publishing box cannot handle some background formating MS Word uses. Also, I had problems when linking.
    If you are typing directly into the publishing box don't! That's like putting $100 bill into vending machine.

    ReplyDelete
  58. CH: "No, I'm not the one here who is uncomfortable with the kind of Designer implied from the real world. This is precisely the arguments that underwrite evolution. Try reading the literature.

    It is amazing how evolutionists see themselves in their critics."

    So how are you sure that the Designer is the same God of the BIble? What if you're completely wrong, and the Designer is really a Deist Designer, or a Muslim Designer, or even a Mormon Designer? If there is a Designer (if...), I'm not at all convinced that it's the Christian one...again, given the reclusivity of this Designer, perhaps this Designer is from a different club...one that you don't belong to ...

    ReplyDelete
  59. Negative Entropy:

    ===
    The argument is that if entropy was a problem the same problem would be there for life today. Why? Because (and you keep missing this part) the very same energy necessary for life to "overcome" entropy today is that one necessary for evolution to operate. We have such energy.
    ===

    This is important because people really need to see and understand the depths of evolutionary folly. You and evolutionists say:

    "The argument is that if entropy was a problem for evolution, then the same problem would be there for life today. Why? Because the very same energy necessary for life to 'overcome' entropy today is that one necessary for evolution to operate. We have such energy."

    In other words,

    If X then Y; and if not Y, then not X, where

    X: entropy is a problem for evolution
    Y: entropy is a problem for life today

    So given this logic, if entropy is *not* a problem for life today, then it isn't for evolution. And since we know life operates just fine, then therefore entropy must not be a problem for evolution.

    The logic is fine, it is the initial statement that is problematic: If X then Y.

    How do evolutionists know this? The answer, of course, is they don't. They have never proven or demonstrated this. But this is not merely a case of failing to provide rock solid proof. The idea that If X is true then Y is true is an incredibly misrepresentation of what the science is telling us. That fact that evolutionists would promote this is yet another example of how they twist science to fit their needs. Not only do we not know this to be true, but it is clear that it is *not* true.

    Consider an automobile. When I turn the key, my car starts up. It is highly unlikely that a collection of parts would provide such a function. But of course those parts have been pre arranged so as to make that function likely. Of course the fact that gasoline burns is also important, but that fact is not sufficient to explain the unlikely function of the auto. Nor would we say that because the second law of thermodynamics does not stop the operation of the car, that therefore entropy would not be a barrier to the *evolution* of the car. These are two completely different things.

    Yet this is what evolutionists are saying about life.

    Continued ...

    ReplyDelete
  60. Negative Entropy:

    ======
    Of course cells form because there is enthalpy. What do you think happens during the processes of cell duplication and such? Magic?
    ======

    Like gasoline in the car example, enthalpy is an important factor, but it is not merely enthalpy that makes biological processes such as cell duplication proceed. It is the prearrangement of mechanisms and structures, without which there would be no cell duplication, just a pile of chemicals drifting apart.


    ====
    "No, enthalpy is not the silver bullet."

    Is it not? then what is it?
    ====

    It is astonishing that evolutionists promote this sort of folly. "What is the silver bullet?" The prearrangement of mechanisms and structures. Enthalpy doesn't alone make a protein fold up to a functioning structure. You have to have one of the few sequences of amino acids. That's the prearrangement, in that case. Once you have that prearrangement then yes, of course, you must have enthalpy. But enthalpy gets you nowhere without the prearrangement of a rare amino acid sequence. Evolutionists make a mockery of science when they then conclude, "gee, the proteins fold up, flagella assemble and operate, cells divide, etc, so therefore entropy isn't a problem for evolution."


    ====
    are you suggesting that "the right arrangements," and the "delivery," and "the cellular environment" don't use energy, and don't have anything to do with enthalpy at all?
    ====

    No, of course not.


    ====
    Do they form magically then? How come then that we have laws of thermodynamics if these systems so obviously and happily violate them?
    ====

    The operation of these bio machines do not violate the laws of thermodynamics anymore than does the operation of an automobile.


    ===
    The argument is that there is no such problem for evolution because the same problem would be there for life today (as shown by such and such).
    ===

    Yes, that's the argument. It is a mockery of science, but what's new?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Janfeld:

    ===
    So how are you sure that the Designer is the same God of the BIble? What if you're completely wrong, and the Designer is really a Deist Designer, or a Muslim Designer, or even a Mormon Designer? If there is a Designer (if...), I'm not at all convinced that it's the Christian one...again, given the reclusivity of this Designer, perhaps this Designer is from a different club...one that you don't belong to ...
    ===

    Good questions Janfeld. I don't have any easy answers. To me the story is quite compelling, and I don't understand why one would reject Jesus, but of course faith is part of it. Just understand that Jesus gave it all for you, while in return you are rejecting him.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Janfeld:

    "and again these metaphysical/theological views color everything else you think and believe about science"

    and again, how so?

    ReplyDelete
  63. CH: "and again, how so"

    Well, for a start, maybe because you teach at a Bible college that has a very explicit and Biblical doctrinal statement that faculty and students are expected to agree and adhere too? One in fact that considers the Bible inerrant. Or do you not adhere to these and keep your science completely separate from these beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  64. "One the one hand with have a God who is anxious to reveal Himself to the world through His word, his "son" etc...yet on the other hand we have a Designer God that seems to work in riddles, is elusive and hidden. Curious eh?"

    I'm sure Cornelius has a personal relationship with Jesus; maybe he could ask Jesus to dictate, sorry reveal, Bible 2.0 where it is explained how Jesus did the designing of life. Key questions: did Jesus poof it all into existence, or did he use evolution, or a mixture of the two?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Troy: "I'm sure Cornelius has a personal relationship with Jesus; maybe he could ask Jesus to dictate, sorry reveal, Bible 2.0 where it is explained how Jesus did the designing of life. Key questions: did Jesus poof it all into existence, or did he use evolution, or a mixture of the two?"

    Maybe Bible 2.0 can explain how He managed to get all of the world's species on a single wooden structure that survived 40 days at sea and was built by only a handful of people (oh wait...looks like Ken Ham is going to solve that one for us...)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Janfeld:

    ====
    CH: "and again, how so"

    Well, for a start, maybe because ...
    ====

    In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    You come here promoting a religious theory that makes no scientific sense, claim that *I'm* the one with the religious motives while apparently knowing nothing about Christian thought on the topic of science. When asked to back up your hypocritical accusations you have nothing of substance to say, but only the usual self-serving, naive stereotypes that justify your own hypocrisy.

    Though my position is perfectly clear, as I have explained many times, you bring on your motive mongering, imagining ulterior motives that make no sense on my position. And even if I was hiding some secret motives, that would be irrelevant to evolution's mockery of science and metaphysical justifications. If my criticisms of evolution are unfounded, then that should be simple to expose, regardless of whatever my motives are.

    But this is precisely the way evolutionists think. It is all about motives. It is the worst of arguments, but it's all they've got.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Troy:

    "I'm sure Cornelius has a personal relationship with Jesus; maybe he could ask Jesus to dictate, sorry reveal, BIBLE 2.0 WHERE IT IS EXPLAINED HOW JESUS DID THE DESIGNING."
    ====

    Again it has to be repeated to a materialist who will never be satisfied anyway. It was not written for the latter day approval of self-promoting intellects with no real interest in spiritual things in the first place. The human historical record of bastardizing Earth's natural resources motivated by selfishness and greed are all the record needed. Had such a detailed record been given, rather than it benefitting mankind, such knowledge would have been further abused and misused far beyond the irresponsiblity with the knowledge they have already acquired on their own.

    Daily, environmentalists(who no doubt are atheistic leaning) are laughed at and made fun of by even your side for pointing out human idiocy and stupidity brought on by the imperfect human traits of greed and selfishness. And there is nothing to quote here on this since the massive volumes of such information practically deluge the Net.

    Water off a duck's back , huh Troy ???
    ----

    Troy:

    "Key questions: did Jesus poof it all into existence, or did he use evolution, or a mixture of the two?"
    ====

    Again, the mechanics of creation are not of prime importance to reveal for your gang to figuatively spit at and urinate on anyway. You've been given ample time to prove Human independence and your media reveals the failure 24/7 365 days a year.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Janfeld:

    "Well, for a start, maybe because you teach at a Bible college that has a very explicit and Biblical doctrinal statement that faculty and students are expected to agree and adhere too?"
    ====

    Interesting. Far be it from the pure unadulterated atheistic ideologies of Soviet Union and Maoist Red China to set rules for their institutions of higher learning, but damn the Cornelius Hunter's college for maybe perhaps requiring certain codes of conduct and belief at a religious institution!!! Why certainly this point alone proves evolution is a FACT.

    I don't know what his college's rules, codes or beliefs are, nor do I care. No one is forced to go there. That's what freewill is all about. I'm sure that the even he and I most certainly would not agree on many doctrinal issues, so what ??? Still, science can and should be neutral in it's explanations put down on research paper no matter what a person's personal bias. Or if they do want to include personal bias, say it is so, just as Cornelius mentions here:

    Cornelius Hunter:
    "
    (i) Provides reasonably plausible explanations rather than absurdities, (ii) provide forthright assessment of how evolution compares with the evidence rather than the continual stream of misrepresentations, and (iii) acknowledge the metaphysics."

    So he actually supports and allows for your right to inject personal bias of assumptions/assertions, but then you need to admit that's what it is. Don't publish such unfounded absurd storytelling and shove down everyone's throat as if it's a proven FACT. Admit the FACTOID inclusion and move on.
    ----

    ReplyDelete
  69. Matthew 7:1-5

    Hmmmmm, so what did Jesus mean, that we are thereby to rule out judgments of all kinds? Or, are there times when it is altogether proper to pass judgment without coming under adverse judgment from God?

    This biblical record is dealing with the Christian Congregation as a whole united body. According to 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, there are serious curcumstances where the older men of the Congregation would have to make judgements for keeping the congregation spiritually clean. Jesus even prayed for Christian unity of his followers to his Father just before his execution. Trivial matters and the error of common imperfect human judging would be detrimental to that Christian unity. Since Thorton is not a Christian nor a part of any denomination(including Cornelius's Church), none of this applies to him since he is not a part of Cornelius church that I know of.

    Plus he is on record as hating anything Cornelius' Church stands for. So what there is absolutely nothing to judge since he proudly and loudly openly admits guilt with all mannner of unrepentance.

    Next there was his reference to James 4:12, but he diliberately and conveniently left out verse 11. Take special note of the reading of James 4:11-12 and the fotnote from one bible translation:

    James 4:11-12 (New International Version, ©2010)

    11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister[a] or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

    Footnotes:

    1. James 4:11 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s family.


    Thorton and gang are not members of any Christian organization and therefore the application is not directed at them. All of them here openly admit they have a repugnance for anything spiritual or Godly, so there is nothing for anyone(human)to judge.

    Interesting how QUOTE MINING goes both ways!!!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Rhod said...

    I shamefacedly admit that some of our highest level evolutionists do crutch back upon vitalism as they sell (and, many, making a damn good living at the sell) evolutionism. When CDarwin seized on the term Natural Selection --and then went on to give a magical fairy quality to it-- saying that "Natural Selection was daily and hourly..adding up all that is good and bad", that was unfortunate. It harked back to failed modalities of alchemy where this element was bold and that element reacted so because it was somber. The term "selection" itself is nearly absent in all hard science, as it implies anthropocentrism and vitalism.


    Er, no. The term 'natural selection' refers to the empirically observed result of differential reproductive success, nothing more. No one in the scientific community claims it is an active, conscious force.

    And his Weasel Generator is like something out of a bad BBC show from 50 years ago. It is fatally flawed and relies on foreknowledge of what it will want to use later on.

    No again. The weasel program was never meant to be a demonstration of the complete evolutionary process. It merely demonstrates the power of cumulative selection, and how an iterative process with cumulative selection can produce a seemingly improbable result in a relatively short time.

    That you have such fundamental misunderstandings about two basic evolutionary concepts does not bode well for your inputs into a ToE discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Of course I didn't say that, but as usual the evolutionist makes up what he wants (after accusing me of quote-mining)."
    ====

    Careful, he's got a Pink Belt in Google-Fu!!!

    He is one of the most notorious big mouthed quote miners on these boards and referencing "Pot Calling Kettle Black" is nothing more than water off a duck's back. He will spin the Joint Smoke 360 degrees totally around in his pot induced imagination and still believe he comes off smelling like Marlborough Man walking into a police station with no fear of being arrested. I'm sure it's all legitimately used for a medical condition anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Eocene said...

    Cornelius Hunter:

    "Of course I didn't say that, but as usual the evolutionist makes up what he wants (after accusing me of quote-mining)."
    ====

    Careful, he's got a Pink Belt in Google-Fu!!!


    LOL! Yeah, double darn those mean scientists who actually check the sources instead of using the lying Creationist "make it up as you go" method.

    If CH doesn't want his dishonest quote-mining exposed, he shouldn't post dishonestly mined quotes.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Eocene: "I don't know what his college's rules, codes or beliefs are, nor do I care. No one is forced to go there. That's what freewill is all about. I'm sure that the even he and I most certainly would not agree on many doctrinal issues, so what ??? "

    I did not say the college was wrong to have these rules. I did not say that CH was wrong to believe them. I was merely pointing out that it is highly likely, given the nature of such doctrinal creeds, that they influence every part of CH's thinking, including his science. That's something he vehemently denies - it appears that he is quick to point to metaphysical motives in everybody else but cannot see how his own influence his worldview.

    And as somebody who was a fundamentalist Christian for 15 years, I do fully understand that such beliefs do in fact color and influence a person's worldview utterly. That is the nature of such a strong black-and-what view of the world For CH to pretend that his science is immune to such influence is utterly disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  75. CH: "You come here promoting a religious theory that makes no scientific sense, claim that *I'm* the one with the religious motives while apparently knowing nothing about Christian thought on the topic of science. etc, etc"

    That's a lot of huffing and puffing CH! After all, how utterly outrageous for anybody to dare to question your motives. Even though you have started to blatantly proselytize (to me personally) on this site. Even though you belong to the DI (an organization with overt Christian orientation and funding). Even though you belong to an education institution that requires faculty ascribe to a fundamentalist doctrinal faith statement.

    And even though you have explicitly stated that you believe the Designer is the Christian God (I don't have the exact date, but it was in comments around March). And when pressed to explain the scientific basis for this you couldn't (or wouldn't...)

    The point is CH as much as you decry the metaphysical underpinnings of evolution you are completely blind to your own metaphysical motivations, or to acknowledge the distinct possibility that these do and have influenced your outlook on science. Sure you can claim that you are doing "pure" science and that your religious beliefs do not impinge on your science. Sure you can say that. The trouble is it rather stretches credulity doesn't it? I'm certainly not buying it. So huff and puff all your like and complain about "stereotypes" or so called "Christian thought on science" (isn't that just another word for metaphysics?) - but there good reason to believe your religious beliefs are shaping and influencing your science.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Cornelius,

    By now I am not surprised that you did not give me a real answer. Nor am I surprised that you just added empty and unfounded claims to pretend as if you are answering anything. Worse, you are pretending I did not say anything else, except "if X then Y." I told you exactly why if X then Y.

    So, how do I know that if entropy is not a problem for life it is not a problem for evolution? Because evolution works with the very same processes as life today. It is you who makes the claim that evolution goes against entropy with no basis whatsoever. Otherwise show me. Here your opportunity:

    What is the entropic barrier that appears when a selected population reproduces that does not appear when an established population reproduces. Identify that barrier, and then you will have a case. In the meantime, you are just stubbornly ignoring the main question and just keep adding stuff that either was perfectly answered and justified in my comments, or that I never said, or that you just make up. I suspect that you are using those as diversionary techniques because you have no answer.

    Unfortunately for you, you add to the suspicion of pretended ignorance and add to possible ridicule by those who just come and have fun at your expense. Do those "pre-arrangements" you talk about run against entropy? Do they not use energy? If not enthalpy, again, then what? How does the arrangement happen? Are they built by magic instead? (Are you going to just repeat the arrangement thing?) Do those who build automobiles use magic? I see the factories burning fuel, but maybe it has been my imagination all along. Let me know.

    I suspect you will divert again. So, I am off hoping at least one of your admirers will notice that you refuse to identify the part where evolution breaks the laws, but life doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  77. However, in the not to distant future, entire cars will be built using 3D printer-like systems in extremely short timeframes without special tooling, etc. For example, BMW will be able to use the same factory to build all of it's cars. And it could switch between them in any order to meet demand by simply changing CAD files. As such, 2010 3 series coupe could roll off the line followed by a one off 2012 prototype, followed by a 2011 7 series sedan by simply changing bits.

    But, once we develop factory with the flexibility necessary to make absolutely any year and model of BMW car by merely feeding it new ones and zeros, something interesting happens. This same factory would also have the necessary flexibly to make cars by Honda or Chevy. And a factory than can make different makes of cars by merely feeding it different ones and zeros could go to making trucks, motorcycles or boats by merely feeding it different ones and zeros as well.

    People who understood manufacturing a few decades ago could have likely found this absurd. Yet, it's clearly a natural progression from the 3D printing technology that's we observe today.

    We can say the same regarding the ability of biology to self assemble different structures by varying DNA sequences. The very same flexibility provides the underlying ability to create new species. Again, this could have been was considered absurd, unless we actually observed it as we do today.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Negative Entropy:

    You claimed if X then Y (and therefore, if not Y, then not X), where:

    X: entropy is a problem for evolution
    Y: entropy is a problem for life today

    You failed to back up that claim.


    ===
    So, how do I know that if entropy is not a problem for life it is not a problem for evolution? Because evolution works with the very same processes as life today.
    ===

    You did say that but the problem is your reasoning is not valid. Yes, we all agree with uniformity. Evolution works with the very same processes as life today, no argument there. But that premise does not lead to your conclusion. By that logic the evolution of a car faces no entropy problem because the operation of it doesn't.


    ===
    It is you who makes the claim that evolution goes against entropy with no basis whatsoever. Otherwise show me. Here your opportunity:

    What is the entropic barrier that appears when a selected population reproduces that does not appear when an established population reproduces. Identify that barrier, and then you will have a case.
    ===

    Here is the standard evolutionary escape: shift the burden of proof. The evolution makes a claim that makes no sense, when questioned he requires you to provide a proof he is wrong, on a very complex problem for which he cannot provide justification for his senseless claim. In this case the shell game goes like this:

    ---
    Evolutionist: If entropy is a problem for evolution, then it would also be a problem for life operating today.

    Skeptic: No, that makes no sense.

    Evolutionist: Then show me the entropic barrier that appears when a selected population reproduces that does not appear when an established population reproduces.
    ---




    ===
    Do those "pre-arrangements" you talk about run against entropy?
    ===

    Of course they do.

    ===
    Do they not use energy?
    ===

    This is an ambiguous question. Protein folding moves to a lower free energy--the enthalpy offsets the entropy barrier, though the tradeoff is complicated. But your suggestion that the protein sequence itself arises merely via a move to lower free energy begs the question. More below ...



    ===
    How does the arrangement happen? Are they built by magic instead? (Are you going to just repeat the arrangement thing?) Do those who build automobiles use magic? I see the factories burning fuel, but maybe it has been my imagination all along. Let me know.
    ===

    Ahh, I forgot! The automobile analogy doesn't work because you are a materialist. Automobiles coming together is just another evolutionary step. Evolution produced humans, humans produced automobiles, it is all just an evolutionary process. OK, so let's drop the automobile analogy and stick to protein folding. You ask:

    ===
    How does the arrangement happen? Are they built by magic instead?
    ===

    Now you are begging the question again. How does the arrangement happen? That's the point at issue. You are claiming that the astronomically rare protein sequences are produced by evolution. But as your justification you say there is no big entropy problem here because, after all, protein folding overcomes the entropy problem.

    Yes, protein folding does overcome the entropy, but it needs the astronomically rare protein sequences to do so. Now we can argue about how evolution might accomplish the incredible feat of finding these sequences, but the fact that proteins fold does *not* mean there is no problem in finding these sequences. The folding occurs *because* the right sequences are there in the first place. The folding is enabled by the sequence. The fact this works is a tribute to the sequence. It does not mean that the creation of the sequence itself does not, therefore, face a serious entropy problem.

    ReplyDelete
  79. First half of my comment is missing. Looks like posts are being deleted again.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Cornelius,

    You failed to back up that claim.

    Nope, you just kept ignoring the answer. As you did now.

    Here is the standard evolutionary escape: shift the burden of proof.

    Excuse me, but if you can't identify the problem you claim to exist, then it does not exist. Claiming that evolution breaks the laws of thermodynamics is an attempt at shifting the burden of proof. You make the claim, yet you can't identify the problem in such a simple example?

    Now here the funniest thing I have ever seen written by a "biophysicist"

    I asked:
    ===
    Do those "pre-arrangements" you talk about run against entropy?
    ===


    The "biophysicist" answered:
    Of course they do.

    Right. Who was your thesis advisor? No, sorry, I don't want to know. Your pretended ignorance cannot be your advisor's fault. I would ask then why do these "pre-arrangements" use so much energy. But I guess I imagined that too. I would also have to ask how in your mind evolution is false because for some unidentifiable reason it breaks the laws of thermodynamics, yet you claim that life goes on by breaking the laws of thermodynamics. Does anybody see this contradiction?

    Yes, protein folding does overcome the entropy, but it needs the astronomically rare protein sequences to do so ...

    We could talk and clarify a few things about your misconceptions there, but if you can't identify the entropic problem at the most basic level, how can I attempt to answer your question at the molecular level? Any explanation would pass way above your head. I suspect that you know that if we go by steps you would have to admit that evolution is science.

    But I know now you will go on with diversions and more diversions. Fine by me. Have the last word.

    Bye Cornelius. It's been fun.

    ReplyDelete
  81. [paraphrase of my original comment]

    CH,

    It's unclear that Louis was referring to entropy as it was never explicitly mentioned in the video you posted. Instead, your entire PO seems to be a projection on your part.

    For example, there are a near infinite ways to combine metal, glass and other materials into a BMW 3 series coupe. To ensure we do not end up with one of these alternate possibilities, an elaborate external, intelligently supervised manufacturing process is required. This includes production pre-planning, pre-fabrication of parts in specialized factories, the construction of special tooling, custom molds and guides, special worker training, etc.. While it may only take a few hours to perform final assembly, this is only possible due to thousands of hours of pre-production.

    On the other hand, biology is more similar to the recent development of 3D printing technologies. By merely varying the series of ones and zeros sent to the device it can build small to medium sized objects in almost any shape. No special tooling, supervision or setup is required. However, unlike 3D printer technology, biology doesn't even use an external construction system. All it needs is a sequence of DNA, energy and a reasonably safe place to self-assemble.

    Now, instead of a car, consider a human being. What are the odds that something that complex as the human body could self-assemble? One could easily create an Intelligent design style argument as to how astronomically impossible and absurd it would be for a few cell to self-assemble into a human being without the intervention and assistance of an intelligent supervisor, let alone every single species on the planet.

    Yet, this is precisely what we observe day after day, year after year.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Negative Entropy:

    ===
    Now here the funniest thing I have ever seen written by a "biophysicist" ...

    The "Right. Who was your thesis advisor? No, sorry, I don't want to know. Your pretended ignorance cannot be your advisor's fault. I would ask then why do these "pre-arrangements" use so much energy. But I guess I imagined that too.
    ===

    In your rants you defend evolution at the cost of trampling on science. And then you have the nerve to represent youself as defending science. These do not appear to be accidental, unintended mistakes you are making. They are much too obvious. More here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/12/protein-folding-and-evolution.html

    ReplyDelete
  83. I have posted this in a previous thread, but with the ongoing discussions on entropy, I thought it appropriate to post it again.

    Dr. Tim M. Berra, a Darwinist, from his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, attempting to refute the creationist claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

    These statements conveniently ignore the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shipping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve.

    I then asked if anyone knows if Dr. Berra has retracted his argument. Someone responded by asking "Why would he?"

    Apparently I failed to see that from beginning to end that only natural forces were involved in the assembly of the bicycle and no intelligent intervention was required.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Doublee said...

    Apparently I failed to see that from beginning to end that only natural forces were involved in the assembly of the bicycle and no intelligent intervention was required.


    You missed the whole point of the analogy which was to drive home the idea local processes can and do reverse entropy as long as the overall entropy of the system does not increase.

    Every time a water puddle in your back yard freezes, that's a local reversal of entropy. Why don't creationists yell that ice freezing is impossible since it violates the second law of thermo?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Doublee,

    Apparently I failed to see that from beginning to end that only natural forces were involved in the assembly of the bicycle and no intelligent intervention was required.

    What you failed to see is that assembling a bicycle also requires energy, that using your intelligence to only apparently do so "against" entropy also uses energy. You failed to see that intelligence itself does not break the laws of thermodynamics either. It operates using loads and loads of energy.

    So, if your argument by analogy is that complexity in nature has to arise using intelligence because intelligence breaks the laws of thermodynamics, then you are quite wrong at more than one level.

    ReplyDelete