[_ Old Earth _] Evolution/ top science breakthrough 2005 !

[Grengor]

You can bet all you want, but bets don't get accepted into the scientific community. You can totally disprove Common Ancestry, and that humans are completely unrelated to current world monkeys, and evolution would still stand.

Sure your not talking about natural selection?

I.D. peeps definitely believe in natural selection. According to ID, all the

different races of people came from one original genetic stock. Same with

dogs, cats, horses, etc...

As populations were isolated, natural selection culled out the most beneficial

traits for the particular enviroment in which the population was isolated.

But the genes always existed in the original genetic stock. I wonder if this is

where alot of the confusion comes into the picture between evolutionary

thought and ID thought.

Peace bro.

Define "information".

And that's one hell of an assertion to claim that the genes were always there, do you back the claim that no "information" can be added through mutation?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Define "information".

And that's one hell of an assertion to claim that the genes were always there, do you back the claim that no "information" can be added through mutation?

It's not an outrageous claim if you believe in special creation versus evolution.

A mutation always results in a net loss of information. That's one of the

weakest links in the evolution argument...mutations supposedly are the

mechanism by which organization and therefore information increase.

Information:


in·for·ma·tion (ĭn'fər-mā'shən) pronunciation
n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.

http://www.answers.com/information

Notice all the definitions imply intelligence.

"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it."

Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University


Peace

 

[Oran_Taran]

It's not an outrageous claim if you believe in special creation versus evolution.

A mutation always results in a net loss of information. That's one of the

weakest links in the evolution argument...mutations supposedly are the

mechanism by which organization and therefore information increase.

Mutations in DNA. There are many ways information is added. Some mutations add small pieces of a chromosome into another chromosome during meiosis, so that one gamete has extra DNA (yeah, the other one has less, but that's irrelevant). Sometimes even whole chromosomes are added... that's mostly bad, but sometimes it's neutral (Personally I've never heard of an extra chromosome being GOOD). Sometimes entire genomes are replicated (polyploidy) and that has a higher chance of being neutral, especially in plants. In animals it's bad for the most part, although there are some polyploid animals out there. There's a kangaroo rat from south america that has 4 copies of each chromosome.
Information can also be added through transposons, viruses, and many other ways.
After there is new DNA, more mutations can cause beneficial mutations. And as I've already said (and given examples), there are many examples of beneficial mutations occuring naturally.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

And that's one hell of an assertion to claim that the genes were always there, do you back the claim that no "information" can be added through mutation?

I do.



There's actually alot of experts in information theory that believe that

evolution and entropy are at odds:

"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."

Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

With a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Spetner taught information and

communication theory for years at Johns Hopkins University.

He accepted a fellowship in biophysics at that institution, where he worked

on solving problems in signal/noise relationships in DNA electron

micrographs. He subsequently became fascinated with evolutionary theory,

and published papers concerning theoretical and mathematical biology in

prestigious journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Nature, and

the Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Biophysics.He's got a

good read out called "Not by Chance"...

Peace

 

[ArtGuy]

Mutations in DNA. There are many ways information is added. Some mutations add small pieces of a chromosome into another chromosome during meiosis, so that one gamete has extra DNA (yeah, the other one has less, but that's irrelevant). Sometimes even whole chromosomes are added... that's mostly bad, but sometimes it's neutral (Personally I've never heard of an extra chromosome being GOOD).

Have we seen any specific examples of a mutation in DNA leading to an increase in information?

 

[Oran_Taran]

Have we seen any specific examples of a mutation in DNA leading to an increase in information?

Of course, otherwise we wouldn't know about them :P
Yes, I know you didn't mean that... so here-

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

speaking of good sites to search for scientific papers and stuff, http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/ is one, as is http://scholar.google.com/ [/quote]

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

"Here, read this. When you understand it completely, we can begin to have a useful discourse on entropy."

Not necessary. I'm fully aware of the implications of the Second Law.

We used the concepts involved in The Second Law of Thermodynamics

continuously while operating our nuclear reactors and steam turbine

engines in the Navy.

Not just theoretically, but practically everyday...for 6 months stretches at a

time.

It's amazing when evolutionists get backed into a corner how they tend

to attack your intelligence and person...with no basis.

Well then, you're wrong.

...and so are they.

Charlie, you do realize that some people are just stupid?

...yet have biases, agendas, logic problems, schizophrenia...

Repeating a lie, doesn't make that lie true.

Morris is either lying or mistaken.

...one person with a Phd who does not understand this...

It deals with physical phenomenon involving heat transfer. Moreover, as I stated before, it requires a closed system.

It also deals with organization, and the tendency of all systems toward

disorganization. It's meaningless to talk about closed systems and open

systems, when only open systems exist. That's a very

common tactic of supporters of ToE...to resort to the "closed system"

argument...it's so very predictable.

However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the

exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually

tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an

irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe.

Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible

in the natural world.

A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is

enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most

important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in

favor of Creationism. Me included. I am a former evolutionist, so I've

been through all the rationalizations that are being expressed on this

forum.

I know the rationalizations inside out, because I used to use them.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a system

requires outside energy and internal information. Evolutionists maintain

that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth,

since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest

that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet.

However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish

this great feat?

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy

make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once

used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and

produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single

seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe,

and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the

Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again

(assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun?

The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and

break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds

the disorganization process.


The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it

this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is "directionlessness," having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14


"Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program... The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."

Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Evolutionist

The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules.

Dr. Wilder-Smith
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
University of Reading, England




Quote:
"...in all the reading I've done in the life sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.The problem with the NDT is not natural selectionâ€â€this is a straightforward, easily observable phenomenon, but it cannot of itself create information."



Dr Lee Spetner

Johns Hopkins University

With a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Spetner taught information and

communication theory for years at Johns Hopkins University.

He accepted a fellowship in biophysics at that institution, where he

worked on solving problems in signal/noise relationships in DNA electron

micrographs. He subsequently became fascinated with evolutionary

theory, and published papers concerning theoretical and mathematical

biology in prestigious journals such as the Journal of Theoretical Biology,

Nature, and the Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of

Biophysics.He's got a good read out called "Not by Chance"...

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Come on guys...give it up. I've been there, and it does nothing positive

for you. Why not move on to the next level...the Truth.



Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.


John 8:32


Peace

 

[ArtGuy]

"Here, read this. When you understand it completely, we can begin to have a useful discourse on entropy."

Not necessary. I'm fully aware of the implications of the Second Law.

It's very necessary, because that page would have explained to you why you're wrong.

We used the concepts involved in The Second Law of Thermodynamics

continuously while operating our nuclear reactors and steam turbine

engines in the Navy.

Really? In what specific capacity did you use the equations that describe the SLoT?

It's amazing when evolutionists get backed into a corner how they tend

to attack your intelligence and person...with no basis.

I'm not an evolutionist. It's just that I realize that arguing against evolution by appealing to entropy is like arguing against Santa Claus by claiming the Tooth Fairy killed him. Sure, Santa Claus may not exist, but the argument against him is still flawed.

It also deals with organization, and the tendency of all systems toward

disorganization. It's meaningless to talk about closed systems and open

systems, when only open systems exist.

Technically, yes, only open systems exist. The idea of closed systems are a mathematical approximation used to simply things, just as we use Newtons laws as a mathematical approximation, and just as pretty much every other calculation engineers and scientists ever do is an approximation. But that doesn't help your point. It just demonstrates the futility of trying to argue against evolution on 2nd Law grounds. By acknowledging the openness of the Earth system, you're acknowledging that you can't simply ignore the sun in such calculations. And the sun is a huuuuuge source of negative entropy.

In fact, the relevant equations regarding how huge of a source it is can be seen here. If you see a mistake in the equations, please point it out.

As to your example of the dead plant, that illustrates nothing. Sure, a dead plant doesn't spontaneously come to life when the sun strikes it. Neither, for that matter, does a rock. So? As a counter-example, consider a seed. The seed takes in energy from the sun, and it becomes more complex, and bigger, throughout its life. The plant by itself shows a local decrease in entropy. But this is at the cost of the massive increase in entropy in the surrounding system.

The point is that there is such a huge entropy increase from the sun, and the earth's biosystem is so open, that it justifies a huge amount of local organization. Which is to say, evolution is very much compatible with the SLoT.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hi Artguy.

I've read your points, and find them reasonable, though I don't agree with

all of them.

But, I've got a good problem.

I've been waiting six months for an expert in ancient metals to analyze my

finds. Here's a link to a photo gallery that gives a overview of what's going

on here:

http://www.preclovis.com .

Here's the last correspondence between me and the Doc:

-------Original Message-------

From:
Date: 01/17/06 12:43:43
To: Charlie Hatchett
Subject: Re: Fw: Possible Prehistoric Furnace and Metal Working


Charlie:

It just arrived via DHL.

I had a quick look and checked the specimens with a strong magnet. There is no metallic iron in any of them. However, both types of specimens are surprisingly dense, considering the sedimentary rock terrane in which they occur.

That brings up a point - could you tell me in which county the site is located? As in big Texas, I know that the counties are relatively small in most cases.

As for the specimens, I am completely mystified at the moment.

I will proceed immediately to get small polished thin sections made of bits of them for microscopic and SEM examination.

In any event, the specimens look very interesting whether they are of natural or human origin. I will get right on the case. I do have a break in mid-February and a lot of points withe Air Canada. How far are you from Dallas? This is the only place Air Canada flies to in Texas aside from Houston. There is some interaction with United, but I don't know if my points will apply with them.


I see that your site is just off xxx. That is a straight run from xxxx, which is about xxx miles xxx of here. ... Actually, annealed cast iron is relatively soft in comparison with most earth materials. My lab technician is already working on the samples.

I got to be all over this. I've been waiting for the appropriate expert in this

field to analyze the material for 6 months....and I got the best!!!


I'll keep ya'll posted, and, ArtGuy, I promise to answer your points just

as soon as this settles down...he's got me pumping all kinds of data to

him.



Thanks and peace!!

Oh, P.S.- If any of ya'll would like to review these finds, I've got a nice

photo galley located at : http://www.preclovis.com

 

[ArtGuy]

I'll keep ya'll posted, and, ArtGuy, I promise to answer your points just

as soon as this settles down...he's got me pumping all kinds of data to

him.

Cool, no rush. I look forward to your reply, and in the meantime, good luck with your project. Sounds pretty neat-o.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

You do realize of course that theories never beome laws. They are not intended to.

You see, a theory is an explanation for observed phenomenon. To be called a thoery, a hypothesis must be well tested. A hypothesis is basically a proposed theory which needs to be tested.

There is a graduation form hypothesis to theory in science.

There is NOT a graduation from theory to law in science.
In fact laws are observations of natural phenomenon that are reliably repeatable enough to be accepted as facts. As you know observations are used to build thoeries. Therefore laws are often some of the building blocks of thoeries.

Laws are not necessarily 100% true either. Laws only apply under certain conditions.



Law = An observation that is reliably repeatable
Thory = An explanation based on observations



There is a theory as to why the sky is blue. That theory is called Releigh Scattering (of light). That particular theory is well verified by experimentation with the properties of light (i.e. laws). If we didn't know these properties the CD player in your computer would never have been invented. It is becuae we have laws for light, that we can build a thoery for why the sky is blue. Raleigh Scattering will never be a Law.


So the next time you hear someobody telling you that evolution is "just a theory" and has not graduated to beomming a law then smile to yourself and maybe chuckle at them for flaunting their ignorance. And remember that the bible teaches us not to flaunt our ignorance.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

There's actually alot of experts in information theory that believe that

evolution and entropy are at odds:

Actually, entorpy is in the realm of physics not information theory. Physicists do not have a problem with evolutionary theory.

 

[Oran_Taran]

So the next time you hear someobody telling you that evolution is "just a theory" and has not graduated to beomming a law then smile to yourself and maybe chuckle at them for flaunting their ignorance. And remember that the bible teaches us not to flaunt our ignorance.

And then teach them the truth of course :P

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Couple of Quickies...then I better spend some time with wifey...

Really? In what specific capacity did you use the equations that describe the SLoT?

One of the areas of application of the second law we used consistently

was energy-conversion systems. For example, it is not possible to convert

all the energy obtained from a nuclear reactor into electrical energy. There

must be losses in the conversion process. The second law can be used to

derive an expression for the maximum possible energy conversion efficiency

taking those losses into account. Therefore, the second law denies the

possibility of completely converting into work all of the heat supplied to a

system operating in a cycle, no matter how perfectly designed the system

may be.

I'm not an evolutionist. It's just that I realize that arguing against evolution by appealing to entropy is like arguing against Santa Claus by claiming the Tooth Fairy killed him. Sure, Santa Claus may not exist, but the argument against him is still flawed.

I don't think it's as drastic as you make it out to be. Evolution has to do with

increasing order and SLoT to do with decreasing order.

Can you expound on why you thinks it's so ridiculous to consider the

differences of a law of decreasing order and a theory of increasing order. I

really don't get why many people who buy into ToE think that to compare

these ideas is absurd.

The point is that there is such a huge entropy increase from the sun, and the earth's biosystem is so open, that it justifies a huge amount of local organization. Which is to say, evolution is very much compatible with the SLoT.

Just because there's a huge amount of entropy occuring within the sun's

system, doesn't mean there has to be an offsetting increase in organization

in an open system exposed to the the entropy.

But what is the mechanism for transferring the energy from the sun into

useful work? Energy exists everywhere in the universe. And there is no such

thing as a closed system. The only situation I'm aware of where order

increases in the universe, is when energy and a program for transferring

that energy into useful work coexist.

By acknowledging the openness of the Earth system, you're

acknowledging that you can't simply ignore the sun in such

calculations.

But the energy in itself is meaningless without a "useful work

converter'...information or programming...

We could observe Mercury, and observe that it's an open system with a

huge source of energy available. But nobody expects to find increasing

order in the overall system of the planet.

… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.

Dr John Ross of Harvard University




Peace

 

[Oran_Taran]

doesn't mean there has to be an offsetting increase in organization
in an open system exposed to the the entropy.

There doesn't HAVE to be, but there is.

But what is the mechanism for transferring the energy from the sun into useful work?

Photosynthesis, Chemosynthesis.

The only situation I'm aware of where order increases in the universe, is when energy and a program for transferring
that energy into useful work coexist.

Snowflakes.

But the energy in itself is meaningless without a "useful work
converter'

Chloroplasts, chlorophyll, etc. chemosynthesis too.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The only situation I'm aware of where order increases in the universe, is when energy and a program for transferring
that energy into useful work coexist.

Your correct Oran. My bad. My statement should read:

The only situation I'm aware of where complexity increases in the universe, is when energy and a program for transferring
that energy into useful work coexist.

However this is my point: adherents to evolution confuse order

with complexity (Apparently ID types do too!!!....lol!!!)

The difference between crystals in rocks and proteins in living organisms is

profound. Break a crystal and you just get smaller crystals; break a protein

and you don’t simply get a smaller protein; rather you lose the function

completely. Large crystals have low information content that is simply

repeated, while the protein molecule isn’t constructed simply by repetition.

Those who manufacture proteins know that they have to add one amino acid

at a time, and each addition has about 90 chemical steps involved.

The confusion is a common mistake that evolutionists make: assuming

that the random occurrence of order (repetitive, low information) in nature,

such as crystals and snowflakes, provides insight into the generation of

complexity (nonrepetitive, high information).


Peace!

 

[Oran_Taran]

The only situation I'm aware of where complexity increases in the universe, is when energy and a program for transferring
that energy into useful work coexist.

again, snowflakes.
Are you saying snowflakes aren't more complex than a drop of water?

The confusion is a common mistake that evolutionists make: assuming that the random occurrence of order (repetitive, low information) in nature, such as crystals and snowflakes, provides insight into the generation of complexity (nonrepetitive, high information).

Well, we were talking about entropy. Snowflakes are an example of something less ordered, less complex, and with more entropy becoming something with less entropy, more ordered, and more complex. And they DO have less entropy, which is the whole point.
You said things only go from high to low entropy if they have information, and snowflakes disprove that.
They also disprove that open systems are included in the SLoT.

But anyway, organisms DO have information in the form of DNA. Therefore, even if you WERE right about them requiring info to make something more complex, your overall point that the SLoT disproves evolution is moot.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Snowflakes are acting in a certain manner because of the Creator.

Sort of like a computer programmer makes a program run a certain way when certain conditions arise.

 

[Oran_Taran]

You want to believe that? fine.
But what does that have to do with what we're debating about? I don't see your point.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

again, snowflakes.

Are you saying snowflakes aren't more complex than a drop of water?

Correct. Their more ordered but no more complex.


The ice crystal example is thermodynamically irrelevant to the origin of life.

When ice freezes, it releases heat energy into the environment. This causes

an entropy increase in the surroundings. If the temperature is low enough,

this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the

crystal. But the formation of proteins and nucleic acids from amino acids and

nucleotides not only lowers their entropy, but it removes heat energy (and

entropy) from their surroundings. Pretty cool, ey!

A crystal forms because it's regular arrangement, determined by directional

forces in the atoms, has the lowest energy. Thus the maximum amount of

heat is released into the surroundings, so the overall entropy is increased.

Well, we were talking about entropy. Snowflakes are an example of something less ordered, less complex, and with more entropy becoming something with less entropy, more ordered, and more complex. And they DO have less entropy, which is the whole point.

You said things only go from high to low entropy if they have information,

and snowflakes disprove that.

They also disprove that open systems are included in the SLoT.

Remember the complex versus order part....

And I said systems, not things.

And remember, I said: "The only situation I'm aware of where order

increases in the universe, is when energy and a program for transferring

that energy into useful work coexist. ...Which I promptly corrected and

admitted my brain fart:

"The only situation I'm aware of where complexity

increases in the universe, is when energy and a program for transferring

that energy into useful work coexist."

"Living organisms, however, differ from inanimate matter by the degree of complexity of their systems and by the possession of a genetic program... The genetic instructions packaged in an embryo direct the formation of an adult, whether it be a tree, a fish, or a human. The process is goal-directed, but from the instructions in the genetic program, not from the outside. Nothing like it exists in the inanimate world."

Ernst Mayr, Ph.D., Evolutionist

The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules.


Dr. Wilder-Smith
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
University of Reading, England

"Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life." (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

Peace