Evolution still bugs me

by Geronimo 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Caedes

  the concept of entropy, which is the enemy of evolution

  That made me laugh, what a completely stupid title. There is a huge entropy 'cost' for life on earth, it's the sun burning nuclear fuel. Any first year physics student could tell you that. If you are looking at the entropy of a system you have to include the motor, If you didn't have to include it in your entropy calculations it would be very easy to come up with a perpetual motion machine!

  There are two questions to ask yourself regarding how life got here,

  firstly there are two ways that life arose in the universe (and specifically on earth) either by entirely natural means or through some supernatural means. It's a simple choice it's either one or the other. For me personally the former is by far the simpler answer.

  If you are a theist does it really matter to you and your relationship with your god what science can prove regarding how life got here, just suppose in a hundred years science has a solid model of how abiogenesis works, there will still be people who believe in religion and a god who started the big bang because fundamentally it doesn't matter what science can prove if you really believe in your god. At the end of the day no theist is ever going to be able to prove god started it all or prove any of the fundamental laws of evolution are wrong, just sit back and be amazed at how much scientists understand of your god's handiwork.
• 

  M.J.

  Is this "Cosmic Ancestry" stuff real science?

  http://www.panspermia.org/index.htm

  This is all new to me, but may add to the discussion.

  Here are some interesting articles on computer models of evolution:

  http://www.panspermia.org/computrs.htm

  http://www.panspermia.org/computr2.htm

  I've only skimmed this stuff, since I should be working :), but thought maybe some would be interested.
• 

  Geronimo

  Hey, this thread is muy bien. I love this discussion. Thanks for all the input guys. G
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Caedes

  the concept of entropy, which is the enemy of evolution

  That made me laugh, what a completely stupid title.

  Maybe you should read the whole title and the article. Just read the first two paragraphs.

  Information, Thermodynamics, and Entropy

  Studies about information and thermodynamics both include the concept of entropy, which is the enemy of evolution

  The fields of thermodynamics and information theory both present strong challenges to the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, these are complex subjects that are not easily understood. That’s why we are glad that evolutionist Charles Seife has done such a good job of explaining the basic concepts in the introduction and first four chapters of his new book, Decoding the Universe. The last five chapters deal with quantum physics and other subjects not relevant to the theory of evolution; but the first 118 pages of the book contain some of the best, most accurate, and easiest to understand explanations of thermodynamics and information theory.

  Since he is an evolutionist, he doesn’t draw the obvious conclusions and tries to skate around them as well as he can; but he does do a pretty good job of setting the stage for those conclusions.
• 

  Caedes

  Maybe you should read the whole title and the article

  I studied mechanical engineering at university, and if anyone states that thermodynamics and entropy is the 'enemy of evolution' then they don't really understand the subject. The fundamental concept that we are talking about is the fact that you do not get something for nothing and that to obtain a localised decrease in entropy then there must be paid for by putting work in elsewhere which will cause entropy to increase. In no way do the laws of thermodynamics prevent you from getting a localised decrease in entropy, it just has to be paid for elsewhere in your system. For example your car does work by moving you from one place to another (a decrease in entropy) at the cost of burnt fuel (an increase in entropy)

  In our case the cost is the burning of nuclear fuel in the sun which pays for our localised decrease (the earth's biosphere) in entropy.

  Anybody who is writing anything about thermodynamics should understand that since it is a basic concept.
• 

  Abaddon

  Charles Seife is a Professor of Journalism... with a BA and MS in Maths.

  He does indeed write for peer-reviewed journals, but nothing he has written for peer-reviewed journals challanges conventional evolutionary theory; he seems to specialise in articles about this solar system and its exploration.

  Thus describing him as an evolutionist is a bit of a streach. As has been demonstrated time and time again, this is someone outside of their specialism, and the fact he has never managed to get anything on evolution peer reviewed, even though he write for proper science journals, speaks volumes.

  I suggest Deputy Dog you be a bit more cautious about whose theories you listen to. I would also love for you to explain in your own words why entropy contraindicates evolution; I get the impression you are just looking for someone, anyone, who backs up your opinions, so you can cite them or quote them, even if you don't actually understand the subject being discussed.

  There is nothing wrong with not knowing something; all it means is you haven't learned it yet. To try and declare 99.9% of scientists wrong about evolution because some guy (not an evolutionist) says so is like saying 99.9% of doctors are wrong about cancer because some plumber says so. If you learn this stuff yourself you will not be so reliant in blind-fath in those who say what you want to hear as you will be able to analyse their arguments from a positon of knowledge.
• 

  Terry

  
  How many of us stop to think how easily we fool ourselves that our language and understanding are so delimited to black and white, either/or, yes or no/ true/false dichotomies?

  Is there no grey? How about gray? :)

  What am I talking about?

  Let's take an apparently simple concept such as SIMPLE and COMPLEX.

  Does "simple" exist? Does "complex" exist? No! These are interpretations of occurances within a GIVEN CONTEXT.

  When I put my iPod earphones in my pocket they are carefully wound up for easy removal. However, when I take them out of my pocket the cord is endlessly knotted like a snake screwing itself! Those knots are complicated, complex and mind-bendingly difficult to undo. Should I kid myself that ORDER begats CHAOS and complexity out of this experience?

  It is a matter of "interpretation" which is orderly and which is chaotic. It all comes down to the use I'm desiring.

  We humans with a lump of hamburger in our skull confuse OUR PERSONAL PREFERENCES for Truths.

  Simplicity and Complexity are INTERPRETIVE FUNCTIONS of human desire and point of view.

  We carry that baggage around when we start contemplating origins of life and evolution. We aren't simple observers of natural interactions. No. We are constantly like theatre critics analyzing and deciding HOW WE THINK things should go by an arbitrary (self-serving) standard. Our final judgement stems not from neutrality or mere examination of facts. It comes down to our expectations and our viewpoint.

  That is why Science has brought us farther than emotional superstition. When you have a dog in the fight you watch the process emotionally. You root for a particular outcome.

  Nature is a given. How it operates is a given. One man's chaos is another man's sparkling complexity.

  Think of a poker game in which the cards are shuffled and hands dealt to players. The process introduces chaos (shuffling) and order (winning hand) simultaneously. How? By arbitrary assignment of imposed values, that's how.

  Evolution isn't something that can be judged by probability because only POSSIBLE things happen.

  And you can take that to the bank.

  T.
• 

  Caedes

  Deputy dog,

  well? no answer?
• 

  M.J.

  Okay I'm a real novice at this whole evolution topic.

  But one thing that strikes me after reading those articles on computer models is that it hasn't been demonstrated that functionality can self-generate. Parameters of existing features can be optimized, for certain, but additional features (additional complexity) are not generated.

  I think that if it is possible for evolution to accomplish this, it should be possible to demonstrate the principle.

  From the articles I linked to above:

  But Darwinism holds that during the course of evolution there were no programmers for genetic programs: the process was blind, self-driven. An analogous process in the world of computers would cause new computer programs or subroutines to appear spontaneously in the traffic of computer code being copied and transferred. If a spontaneous new computer program or subroutine somehow became able to replicate itself, it would have taken a significant step toward "life." If, subsequently, it accrued other advantages, like concealment, it would have a "survival" advantage in the world of computer traffic. From there, by analogy with Darwinism, it could grow and multiply and have properties similar to life. Does this ever happen?

  Alternatively, it should be possible for scientists to artificially create a computer "environment" in which the evolution of computer programs could occur. Parameters governing the mutation and recombination rates could be optimized for the evolution of new programs. At the lightning speed of modern computers, jillions of trials could be run to see if randomness coupled with any nonteleological iterative process can ever write computer programs with genuinely new functions. Has this been done?

  We have believed since before Darwin that biology does not have a different set of rules from the rest of science. If Darwinian evolution works, it should be possible to mimic the process in software. By whatever mechanism, Ohno’s or other, computers should be able to mimic what biological evolution has done. In the discussion above, we have focused on the creation of new genes that code for new functions.
  
  ...
  

  Of course, in the marketplace, computers have acquired these and many other new abilities, but not in a closed system. To mimic Darwinian evolution, they would have to evolve improvements without input from programmers, starting with only programs already available. To suggest that computers ever might evolve significant improvements this way seems farfetched. Why? Can computers, without the input of new code, write for themselves any programs with fundamentally new meaning? Is there any example of an improvement to personal computers that was written by the unguided random duplication, mutation and recombination of existing code? Or, is the Darwinian account of the evolution of biological improvements equally farfetched?

  Returning to the narrower original question, can any computer model of Darwinian evolution produce the analog of new genes? If not, perhaps we should wonder if the Darwinian mechanism is sufficient to produce new genes on Earth, or whether another source for them is necessary.

  As for citing a snowflake or a crystal to demonstrate that complexity self-generates, this is analogous to throwing a bunch of cubical wooden blocks on the floor & pointing out that they all lie flat. No big whup.

  But I really am interested in learning all sides of this. This is just an aspect that fascinates me.
• 

  astro

  'brain centers' that deal with religion/spirituality.........concepts of religion/spirituality are nothing more than the result of subjective cognitive processes. There is no 'unique,special' extra part of the brain that deals with these specific topics/issues.