[_ Old Earth _] Five Pillars of Evolution Compared with Creation

[Solo]

http://www.ancientdays.net/fivepillars.htm

 

[jwu]

*sigh*

Physical (material) Universe

Evolution is a scientific theory and science only deals with the natural. It however doesn't exclude the supernatural.

Life from Non-Life

Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.

All Variety from a Single Cell
Time - 4.5 Billion Years
Order from Chaos

Ok.

 

[Solo]

http://www.ancientdays.net/fivepillars.htm

Note: While it maybe obvious to the reader that this article was written some time ago, very little has changed over the years regarding the facts, beliefs, and theories. This article speaks to the philosophy underlying evolution, and current findings have not disproved the author's observations. As the author feels future findings will also not change the facts noted herein, we feel it can be useful to our readers to get a foundational understanding of the philosophy that was and is still behind evolutionary thinking today -- the names and dates may change, but the philosophy and facts do not. In addition, it is helpful to learn the origins of these beliefs.

 

[jwu]

What about the false statements that one of evolution's "pillars" is a material universe i.e. atheism, and that it depends on abiogenesis?

These are just plain wrong.

 

[Barbarian]

It wouldn't be YE creationism, if it didn't include a lie or two about evolutionary theory. I think it's mandatory for them.

 

[Solo]

All Life Comes from Life

This is obvious even to the unlearned. Seeds produce plants. Animals reproduce themselves. Everywhere one sees life reproducing. Experiments are unnecessary.

In fact, evolutionists will agree with creationists on this. How could anyone disagree? Yet, if we, agree that life comes only from life, why do evolutionists insist that at one time it did not? They are being inconsistent. And, to try to prove their point they have spent millions of dollars of private and government funds, all to no avail.

Although creationists are often reprimanded for not experimenting, they would answer, in this case, that it is foolish to try to prove something so obviously untrue.

If creationists say all life comes from life, then the obvious question is, "Where did the first life come from?" And their answer is, "From God Himself - He IS Life". The first chapter of John's Gospel says it very plainly, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God; all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was LIFE..." In Christ IS Life! The visible creation came from the invisible God.
(Hebrews 11:3)

Not only did Christ Himself impart life to the initial creation, He is imparting new life to all who will come to Him. He said, "I am come that they might have life, and that more abundantly." (John 10:10)

We see, then, that creationism not only supplies a satisfactory answer to the origin of life, but also provides information to satisfy the deepest needs of mankind.

 

[jwu]

Yet, if we, agree that life comes only from life, why do evolutionists insist that at one time it did not? They are being inconsistent.

Again, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
While many evolutionists do subscribe to abiogenesis, these are separate and independent theories/hypotheses.

However, when some evolutionist who also subscribes to abiogenesis agrees that life "always" comes from life, then that's merely a semantical inaccuracy.

 

[Barbarian]

All Life Comes from Life

Not part of evolutionary theory, which is indifferent to the way life began. But what if we find out that God was right, and life did come from non-living material? What then?

In fact, evolutionists will agree with creationists on this. How could anyone disagree?

If they were Christian, they would. God says that the earth brought forth life.

Genesis 1: 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Yet, if we, agree that life comes only from life, why do evolutionists insist that at one time it did not?

They don't, many of them. Evolutionary theory makes no claims about the way life began.

 

[Solo]

Loren Eiseley, prolific evolutionary writer, nevertheless summed up the situation in Immense Journey (1957, p.199), "With the failure of these many efforts (to create life) science was left in the embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate . . . of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what could not be proven to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

 

[Slevin]

Loren Eiseley, prolific evolutionary writer, nevertheless summed up the situation in Immense Journey (1957, p.199), "With the failure of these many efforts (to create life) science was left in the embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate . . . of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what could not be proven to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

So?

This is obvious even to the unlearned. Seeds produce plants. Animals reproduce themselves. Everywhere one sees life reproducing. Experiments are unnecessary.

There is no law that life comes from life. The Law of Biogenesis is a statement that life does not spontaneously generate. It says nothing regarding Abiogenetic theories or the formation of early life.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

There is no law that life comes from life.

How about the rule of cause and effect and repeated observations. Also consider the lack of observations to the contrary. The idea that life came from purely naturalistic causes is pure conjecture and lacks observability, repeatability, and violates the rule of cause and effect and the Second Law. In my opinion, in the face of observations and hard facts, accepting purely naturalistic causes for the origins of life requires the believer to exhibit an inordinate amount of faith, well outside the bounds of science.

 

[Slevin]

How about the rule of cause and effect and repeated observations.

What about it?

Also consider the lack of observations to the contrary. The idea that life came from purely naturalistic causes is pure conjecture and lacks observability, repeatability, and violates the rule of cause and effect and the Second Law. In my opinion, in the face of observations and hard facts, accepting purely naturalistic causes for the origins of life requires the believer to exhibit an inordinate amount of faith, well outside the bounds of science.

1. It is speculation, but like all sciences, they start out with speculation and then we go from there.
2. We have observation to the contrary to support the idea, they are basic experiments but they indicate slight possibilities.
3. All life is composed of non-life, so it's not that huge of a step.
4. How does it violate the rule of cause and effect?
5. How does it violate the Second Lw?
6. Your opinion is irrelevant then, because it doesn't.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

1. It is speculation, but like all sciences, they start out with speculation and then we go from there.
2. We have observation to the contrary to support the idea, they are basic experiments but they indicate slight possibilities.
3. All life is composed of non-life, so it's not that huge of a step.
4. How does it violate the rule of cause and effect?
5. How does it violate the Second Lw?
6. Your opinion is irrelevant then, because it doesn't.

#1. Your hypothesis, then, is life comes from non-life.

#2 And your arguement is there are "basic" experiments that indicate "slight possibilities".

#3 You strengthen your arguement above by claiming that subatomic particles randomly organizing themselves into information bearing, self-replicating DNA is not a huge step.

#4 and 5 The Cause has less entropy than the effect

#6 Brilliant response :

 

[jwu]

#4 and 5 The Cause has less entropy than the effect

Huh?
I don't see what this has to do with cause and effect (which doesn't exist on a quantum level anyway).

And if he effect has more entropy than the cause (well...technically one cannot say such a thing, but anyway), then i don't see how anyone could possibly argue that there is a conflict with the 2ndLoT either.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Huh?
I don't see what this has to do with cause and effect (which doesn't exist on a quantum level anyway).

Because no process is 100% efficient, the effect must always possess more entropy than the cause. What do you mean by cause and effect not existing at the quantum level? In this universe, as far as has been observed, everything has a cause.

And if the effect has more entropy than the cause (well...technically one cannot say such a thing, but anyway), then i don't see how anyone could possibly argue that there is a conflict with the 2ndLoT either.

Because for evolution, versus devolution, to occur, the effect would necessarily contain less entropy than the cause.

 

[jwu]

What do you mean by cause and effect not existing at the quantum level? In this universe, as far as has been observed, everything has a cause.

No, e.g. quantum tunnelling events happen without any cause, as a consequence of the purely stochastic "real" position of a particle within the wave function.

Because for evolution, versus devolution, to occur, the effect would necessarily contain less entropy than the cause.

There is no such thing as devolution.

However, what constitues a beneficial mutation is determined by the environment. Do you propose that there is some thermodynamical difference between a mutation which provides no benefit or a deleterious effect in one environment and the same mutation which provides a beneficial effect in another?

How is e.g. a base pair substitution from G to T which may provide a benefit in one particular environment thermodynamically different from a substitution from G to A which may be neutral or deleterious?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

No, e.g. quantum tunnelling events happen without any cause, as a consequence of the purely stochastic "real" position of a particle within the wave function.

The way I understand these tunneling effects, a cause and effect relationship exist, but are, at this point, not precisely measurable (due to the nanoscopic nature), thus the effects are expressed in probabilistic terms.

There is no such thing as devolution.

However, what constitues a beneficial mutation is determined by the environment. Do you propose that there is some thermodynamical difference between a mutation which provides no benefit or a deleterious effect in one environment and the same mutation which provides a beneficial effect in another?

How is e.g. a base pair substitution from G to T which may provide a benefit in one particular environment thermodynamically different from a substitution from G to A which may be neutral or deleterious?

I don't see a mutation as necessarily an increase in thermodynamical entropy, whereas a true mutation is necessarily an increase in informational entropy. This is what I was referring to by using the term devolution. I do, however, believe DNA has variability designed into it's code.

 

[jwu]

The way I understand these tunneling effects, a cause and effect relationship exist, but are, at this point, not precisely measurable (due to the nanoscopic nature), thus the effects are expressed in probabilistic terms.

Then until that cause actually has been found, the law of cause and effect is compromised on the quantum level and might be reinstated later.

Because when something is found that appears to be uncaused one could always say that there could be some yet unknown cause - in order to deal with that excuse one would have to prove a negative, which is impossible and hence it's not a valid objection by scientific standards as it is unfalsifiable.

I don't see a mutation as necessarily an increase in thermodynamical entropy, whereas a true mutation is necessarily an increase in informational entropy.

"True scotsman" fallacy.

However, the same line of reasoning still applies:
Do you propose that a "true" mutation in one environment is a increase of informational entropy and in another environment it is a decrease?

And what is informational entropy anyway?
In Shannon's terms it is just the degree of alteration of the original message. Evolution actually requires an increase of Shannon entropy.
In K/C terms it's the frequency of letters compared to the overall size of the alphabet. This is completely neutral in terms of evolution, and K/C entropy explicitly is allowed to decrease.

I do, however, believe DNA has variability designed into it's code.

Where is the mysterious barrier at which this variability ends, and what mechanism enforces it?

 

[Slevin]

#1. Your hypothesis, then, is life comes from non-life.

No it isn't.

#2 And your arguement is there are "basic" experiments that indicate "slight possibilities".

No it isn't.

#3 You strengthen your arguement above by claiming that subatomic particles randomly organizing themselves into information bearing, self-replicating DNA is not a huge step.

No I didn't.

#4 and 5 The Cause has less entropy than the effect

No I didn't.

#6 Brilliant response :

Brilliant strawman.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Quote:
The way I understand these tunneling effects, a cause and effect relationship exist, but are, at this point, not precisely measurable (due to the nanoscopic nature), thus the effects are expressed in probabilistic terms.
Then until that cause actually has been found, the law of cause and effect is compromised on the quantum level and might be reinstated later.

Because when something is found that appears to be uncaused one could always say that there could be some yet unknown cause - in order to deal with that excuse one would have to prove a negative, which is impossible and hence it's not a valid objection by scientific standards as it is unfalsifiable.

Quote:
I don't see a mutation as necessarily an increase in thermodynamical entropy, whereas a true mutation is necessarily an increase in informational entropy.
"True scotsman" fallacy.

However, the same line of reasoning still applies:
Do you propose that a "true" mutation in one environment is a increase of informational entropy and in another environment it is a decrease?

And what is informational entropy anyway?
In Shannon's terms it is just the degree of alteration of the original message. Evolution actually requires an increase of Shannon entropy.
In K/C terms it's the frequency of letters compared to the overall size of the alphabet. This is completely neutral in terms of evolution, and K/C entropy explicitly is allowed to decrease.

Quote:
I do, however, believe DNA has variability designed into it's code.
Where is the mysterious barrier at which this variability ends, and what mechanism enforces it?

I'll also respond to this one hopefully by this weekend. To darn crazy during the week to give you an adequete response.
Have a good week.