|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. September 2006 15:04
Some don't believe in a start for the universe but rather that it was eternal. Nobody knows anything for sure about such matters which is why I don't concern myself with them. It is bad enough having to deal with those who deny that there was a purpose in it all and that the Plan has been executed, both of which I regard as firmly established.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nullasalus
Member
Member # 2486
|
posted 17. September 2006 15:17
John A. Davison,
With that much, I find myself having to agree. At first I wondered whether it all could be chance - but seeing the supposed design-shattering 'chance' that has been offered up as an explanation for the human experience.. in my uneducated opinion, it's thin.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 19. September 2006 06:07
quote:
Sciwall (posted 14. September 2006 13:12): …does this (2ndEarth is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases) mean you think that on 2ndEarth, neither ice nor ozone can form? Both are entropy decreasing processes, so should be precluded by your analysis.
2ndEarth is a hardly cooled down lump of liquid stone. In the beginning of the cooling down process, large quantities of gasses will have been "sweated out", resulting in an atmosphere as simulated by Miller. His initial experiment demonstrates what is likely to have happened on 2ndEarth: flashes of lightning producing building blocks for life as well as substances hostile to life as ozone, cyanide and coal tar. In his initial experiment, Miller found that the formed building blocks for life were destroyed again by new flashes of lightning, the bigger the building blocks the sooner.
In the virtual reality of the theory of macro-evolution, complex molecules maintain their complexity and expand it ever further, since molecules are believed to have an intrinsic desire to do so. In reality, as demonstrated by the initial Miller experiment, complex molecules formed by random processes ultimately break down again into the basic substances they have originated from. Only in factories, by directed energy, basic substances can be arranged into complex molecules and preserved, as Miller's adjusted experiment demonstrates.
A glass sphere, keeping its primordial atmosphere together, does not surround 2ndEarth.
After the ending of the "sweating out process" of gasses, the differences in concentration between the atmosphere on 2ndEarth and space will ultimately equalize, resulting in the complete dissipation of the atmosphere into space, leaving 2ndEarth as dry and dusty as our Moon. (If all plants on Earth are destroyed, soon its atmosphere will disappear as well, and Earth will turn as dry and dusty as 2ndEarth).
quote:
Nullasalus (posted 16. September 2006 15:42) If you're insisting that the 2nd law means complexity can't increase, how do you explain Miller's thirty minutes in his first attempt?
The analysis made in the previous discussion is that systems in space that are in equilibrium with their environment are "zero-left-term-systems" for which the entropy increases. We also found that "increase of entropy" can be described as "equalization of differences". In dynamic systems, differences (for instance of energy, concentration, temperature, complexity, et cetera) continuously fluctuate. When observing these fluctuations on a larger timescale in "zero-left-term-systems", they ultimately equalize.
On a beach, the wind makes ripples in the sand. The next day, the wind turns and destroys the ripples and makes new ones, et cetera. Indeed, the winds can make differences grow temporarily, but the random wind forces cannot maintain the ripples and make them grow ever further.
In space, random flows of energy can make "ripples in the molecular sand". But random energy flows cannot preserve them and make them grow ever further, as demonstrated by Miller's initial and adjusted experiment and confirmed by empirical science.
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 19. September 2006 22:32
quote:
In the virtual reality of the theory of macro-evolution, complex molecules maintain their complexity and expand it ever further, since molecules are believed to have an intrinsic desire to do so. In reality, as demonstrated by the initial Miller experiment, complex molecules formed by random processes ultimately break down again into the basic substances they have originated from.
Hmm, in my understanding of biotic reality, the fact that every complex biological molecule ever produced has broken down in no way is in conflict with the evolutionary theories. Can you clarify this odd stance somewhat? What molecules does the theory of evolution require to stay undegraded for any significant length of time?
quote:
After the ending of the "sweating out process" of gasses, the differences in concentration between the atmosphere on 2ndEarth and space will ultimately equalize, resulting in the complete dissipation of the atmosphere into space, leaving 2ndEarth as dry and dusty as our Moon. (If all plants on Earth are destroyed, soon its atmosphere will disappear as well, and Earth will turn as dry and dusty as 2ndEarth).
Again, hmm. Quite another odd stance. The plants are somehow keeping our atmosphere in? Not gravity? Interesting. How are abiotic planets able to maintain an atmosphere then?
quote:
The analysis made in the previous discussion is that systems in space that are in equilibrium with their environment are "zero-left-term-systems" for which the entropy increases. We also found that "increase of entropy" can be described as "equalization of differences". In dynamic systems, differences (for instance of energy, concentration, temperature, complexity, et cetera) continuously fluctuate. When observing these fluctuations on a larger timescale in "zero-left-term-systems", they ultimately equalize.
On a beach, the wind makes ripples in the sand. The next day, the wind turns and destroys the ripples and makes new ones, et cetera. Indeed, the winds can make differences grow temporarily, but the random wind forces cannot maintain the ripples and make them grow ever further.
In space, random flows of energy can make "ripples in the molecular sand". But random energy flows cannot preserve them and make them grow ever further, as demonstrated by Miller's initial and adjusted experiment and confirmed by empirical science.
Again, quite odd. I would not think that directed solar radiation of particular frequency and power would be considered 'random', but oh well, you are welcome to your opinion I guess. Also, we know on abiotic planets, complex self sustaining atmospheric phenomena can exist through a combination of solar radiation and planetary internal energy.
By the way, ripples can propagate, and 'random' energy flow can cause resonance. Who is to say life is not just a propagating entropic ripple caused by resonance of planetary and solar energy?
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 20. September 2006 15:52
All,
Thanks so much for continuing this discussion. I became engrossed in my work and had to bow out in middle of a discussion. DeJong presents many of the issues very well and I agree with him in many respects. It is a shame that thermodynamics is being co-opted by those with an agenda to "protect" Neo-Darwinian evolution. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a friend of the theory. It stands in opposition to every advancement.
I also find it interesting that irrelevant information is repeatedly given in support to the notion that entropy decreasing processes are normal and that evolutionary advancement is possible. Freezing that occurs in nature is due to the transient swings of temperature. It is 100% expected when the temperature goes down below the freezing point. But life is not as simple as a swing in the temperature difference. It requires the controlled and focused utilization of energy -- the thermodynamic mechanism. Evolutionary theory does not explain this mechanism and only uses "hand waving" without defining and scientifically explaining this mechanism. Until the thermodynamic problem is adequately addressed Neo-Darwinian evolution remains a weak theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. September 2006 06:20
Of course living systems cannot "realy" violate thermodynamic law. The way they "apparently" get away with it resides in the final products of metabolism. To ensure that a chemical reaction never comes to equilibrium is to provide a sink for the products so they don't build up and cause a reverse reaction. Those products for life are primarily carbon dioxide and water, both chemically inert, being fully oxidized products. A further safeguard resides in the fact that CO2 and H2O, the products of animal metabolism, provide the basis for all of plant life which results of course in the wonderful balance of nature that characterizes terrestrial and aquatic life.
Robert Broom once speculated on why it was necessary for all the past bizarre forms of life to have existed. He offered a reasonable answer. He said it was necessary to maintain the balance of nature to allow evolution to achieve its final goal which, as we both agree, was the production of a rational creature, Homo sapiens, who I believe is the youngest and last mammal to ever appear on earth. If he were alive I am sure he would agree.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 23. September 2006 05:26
The human body does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics just like a dump truck taking a load of dirt up a mountain does not. The dump truck has an engine that enables the truck to run up the mountain. But the dirt does not "naturally (1)" move uphill without assistance from a thermodynamic mechanism -- a device that focuses energy enabling a process which is probabalistically a rare event. The measure of the probability distinguishes between a "natural thermodynamic mechanism" and an "intelligent designed thermodynamic mechanism". For example, an earthquake could move dirt uphill by tectonic shifting. The event may be rare, but the probability is not small enough to classify as an intelligent designed mechanism or a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, assuming there is no intelligent being around to enable the process.
Critics of this post may say that I am mixing thermodynamics with concepts of Intelligent Design (ID). This is hardly the case. For example, why does a gas spread out and fill a room? Could not the air move to one side of a classroom killing all the students on the other side of the room? Probabilistically it IS possible, but it does not happen thermodynamically because it is so improbable -- it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We need intelligent beings with thermodynamic mechanisms, utilizing energy to enable these highly improbable processes. For example, we may use a compressor to pump the air out of one chamber into the next chamber. We would also need energy to run the compressor, though. Thermodynamics and Intelligent Design are clearly connected.
Advocates of Neo-Darwinian evolution always point out the "natural mechanisms" as an argument to say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not pose any problem for evolution. But this is highly dishonest! The natural mechanisms all have the characteristic of being simple without extensive complexity nor low probability. Again, I must be careful here because the advocates of evolution try to cloud the issue. They define a large number of interacting parts as a complex system and fail to examine the issue of probability. For example, they will look at the flow of fluid and attempt to define it as complex, because of the many interacting molecules. Neat flows and patterns may be observed by these dissipative systems, but the probability is high. The Great Leap of evolution is observed here! Just because "complex" patterns are observed by dissipative systems it is hypothesized that both life originated from inanimate matter and that a multitude (and this is a LARGE multitude) of complex and improbable mutations enabled the development of complex life-forms. Again, I should point out that the Second Law continually "fights" every process that results in a decrease of entropy, such as the advancement of life would require.
The natural mechanisms are not even close to the complexity of life. Life-forms are like machines because of the metabolic processes that enables life to live. Energy is processed allowing the many subsystems of life to operate. The brain of mammals is highly advanced greatly superior to computers that humans have developed. The body is highly coupled. Subsystem after subsystem interact together in a highly controlled fashion. The coupling is at a multitude of levels. The body operates at the macro, micro and nano levels. This coupling is extreme and even today not understood. The extreme complexity of the interconnected and operating parts requires the probability of evolutionary development to be astronomically small. Thermodynamically speaking, a multitude of processes must occur that are highly improbable. If there were only a few improbable processes, there may be hope for evolution, but there are billions upon billions of highly improbable processes required. Just like the air molecules moving all to one side of the room is a violation of the Second Law, so the billion upon billions of processes resulting in evolutionary development are a violation. Both are simply too improbable. The burden of proof is on the advocates of evolution to show that evolutionary development is in the realm of the probable. To date little evidence has been presented to resolve the thermodynamic problem and the issue is swept aside by distorting thermodynamics.
1. Here I use the word "naturally" more in a thermodynamic sense. It is the expected direction of the process. It is similar to ID but there is some difference.
[ 23. September 2006, 06:02: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. September 2006 06:42
"A past evolution is UNDENIABLE. A present evolution UNDEMONSTRABLE."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. September 2006 10:26
kyle7
Everything in the universe is natural or it would not be there. There is no reason to invoke the supernatural to explain life in all its complexity. The only place where the superatural must be invoked is in its origin or origins, events that took place eons ago and are no longer occurring. This is of course just my opinion.
" A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 26. September 2006 06:07
quote:
William, posted 19. September 2006 06:07: In the virtual reality of the theory of macro-evolution, complex molecules maintain their complexity and expand it ever further, since molecules are believed to have an intrinsic desire to do so. In reality, as demonstrated by the initial Miller experiment, complex molecules formed by random processes ultimately break down again into the basic substances they have originated from.
Sciwall, posted 19. September 2006 22:32 Hmm, in my understanding of biotic reality, the fact that every complex biological molecule ever produced has broken down in no way is in conflict with the evolutionary theories. Can you clarify this odd stance somewhat? What molecules does the theory of evolution require to stay undegraded for any significant length of time?
Macro-evolutionary theory as found in any book on evolution states - in a nutshell - that random processes (of lightning) have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primordial oceans in hundreds of millions of years; these building blocks started to combine themselves into ever more complex molecules, developed themselves into reproducing macro molecules, turned themselves into RNA, then into DNA, subsequently into cells, and finally into organisms. This entire process, however, can only happen in a fantasy world. In the real world, random flows of energy can indeed produce temporary order, but they cannot preserve this order and expand it ever further, as the initial Miller experiment demonstrates. As soon as building blocks for life were produced, new flashes of lightning destroyed them, the bigger the sooner. Only chemical factories can change basic substances into complex molecules, as the adjusted Miller experiment demonstrates. Since random processes cannot maintain the order of even the tiniest building block for life, the further increase of complexity by random processes is no more than a fantasy and wishful thinking.
quote:
Sciwall, posted 19. September 2006 22:32 Again, hmm. Quite another odd stance. The plants are somehow keeping our atmosphere in? Not gravity? Interesting. How are abiotic planets able to maintain an atmosphere then?
When a lump of liquid stone in space cools down, it sweats out gasses. Gravity will prevent the gas molecules to move right away into space, resulting in an atmosphere of gasses around the planet. At 100.000 km distance from the planet, no gasses are present. Therefore, a difference of concentration exists between the planet's atmosphere and space. Empirical science teaches us that any difference (e.g., of energy, temperature, complexity, concentration) will ultimately equalize. As a consequence, when the sweating out process is stopped, the planet will ultimately loose its atmosphere.
quote:
Sciwall, posted 19. September 2006 22:32 again, quite odd. (A) I would not think that directed solar radiation of particular frequency and power would be considered 'random', but oh well, you are welcome to your opinion I guess. (B) Also, we know on abiotic planets, complex self sustaining atmospheric phenomena can exist through a combination of solar radiation and planetary internal energy. (C) By the way, ripples can propagate, and 'random' energy flow can cause resonance. Who is to say life is not just a propagating entropic ripple caused by resonance of planetary and solar energy?
Ad.A
In the previous discussion it was proven that putting 2ndEarth in the light of the sun results in a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
Ad. B
See above, why the atmosphere of any planet will ultimately disappear.
Ad C
In the domain of religion, any guess, fantasy or belief is allowed. In the domain of science, however, we need empirical evidence of the existence of resonating entropic ripples making molecules start ordering themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further.
[ 26. September 2006, 06:11: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 02. October 2006 12:37
quote:
Macro-evolutionary theory as found in any book on evolution states - in a nutshell - that random processes (of lightning) have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primordial oceans in hundreds of millions of years; these building blocks started to combine themselves into ever more complex molecules, developed themselves into reproducing macro molecules, turned themselves into RNA, then into DNA, subsequently into cells, and finally into organisms.
Hmm, well, that is not the 'macro-evolution' theory I know of, more a hypothesis on how life arose on the planet to begin with. The macro-evolution theory I am familiar with is the primates-to-man, dinosaurs-to-birds, rise of the angiosperm type evolutionary theory. I take it you have no thermodynamic problems with these types of changes?
As for the rise of life from a sterile planet through random chemical reactions catalyzed by high energy sources, I have to agree with you. I think there are a host of issues with this type of hypothesis, not the least that we have basically no evidence for it. I am not willing to rule it out based on thermodynamic considerations, but I admit they make a formidable hurdle for this hypothesis to turn out to be correct.
quote:
When a lump of liquid stone in space cools down, it sweats out gasses. Gravity will prevent the gas molecules to move right away into space, resulting in an atmosphere of gasses around the planet. At 100.000 km distance from the planet, no gasses are present. Therefore, a difference of concentration exists between the planet's atmosphere and space. Empirical science teaches us that any difference (e.g., of energy, temperature, complexity, concentration) will ultimately equalize. As a consequence, when the sweating out process is stopped, the planet will ultimately loose its atmosphere.
Okay, but what does this have to do with 2ndEarth losing its atmosphere while our earth does not?
quote:
In the previous discussion it was proven that putting 2ndEarth in the light of the sun results in a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
Well, I just looked back again at your discussion of the 2ndEarth. I have to say your thermodynamic analysis is completely wrong on a number of levels. First off, at all times, the point on S that is behind 2ndEarth and not in direct sunlight will be hundreds of degrees colder than any point on S that is in the sunlight. Therefore, your conclusion that S in in equilibrium because there are no temperature differences on S is incorrect. Second, while not in equilibrium, the surface S will be generally in a steady-state, where the input of energy is equal to the output. However, the entropy of the input and output energy on S will be significantly different, with lower entropy energy entering S and higher entropy energy leaving S. This entropy balance is key to any thermodynamic consideration of 2ndEarth, and to leave it out blows a giant hole in any conclusions from your initial analysis, flawed as it is to begin with.
Sorry.
quote:
In the domain of religion, any guess, fantasy or belief is allowed. In the domain of science, however, we need empirical evidence of the existence of resonating entropic ripples making molecules start ordering themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further.
Well, we do have some evidence - huge organized storms start from tiny atmospheric ripples that expand as they feed off planetary and solar energy.
Not much I admit, but hey, its not meant to be a scientific hypothesis. I find the concept of origins fascinating, and while I have no faith in any one hypothesis over another, I try to at least consider any proposed scenario with an open mind and in accordance with the evidence.
[ 02. October 2006, 12:39: Message edited by: sciwall ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 03. October 2006 05:57
quote:
William , posted 26. September 2006. Macro-evolutionary theory as found in any book on evolution states - in a nutshell - that random processes (of lightning) have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primordial oceans in hundreds of millions of years; these building blocks started to combine themselves into ever more complex molecules, developed themselves into reproducing macro molecules, turned themselves into RNA, then into DNA, subsequently into cells, and finally into organisms.
Sciwall posted 02. October 2006. Hmm, well, that is not the 'macro-evolution' theory I know of, more a hypothesis on how life arose on the planet to begin with. The macro-evolution theory I am familiar with is the primates-to-man, dinosaurs-to-birds, rise of the angiosperm type evolutionary theory. I take it you have no thermodynamic problems with these types of changes?
In any book on evolution, the theory or hypothesis can be found that random processes (of lightning) have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primordial oceans, which turned themselves into ever more complex structures, resulting in a steady increase of differences. This theory/hypothesis can be denoted as the macro-evolution theory, in contrast to the micro-evolution theory, which explains the continuing change in living nature by the mechanism of variation of allele combinations from the gene pool of a species and selection (natural or artificial). In the latter mechanism the size of the DNA-code does not increase. Hypotheses/theories that pose that random processes can maintain the DNA-code and can make it grow ever further are in conflict with empirical science (since random processes cannot maintain differences and make them grow ever further).
quote:
Sciwall posted 02. October 2006. As for the rise of life from a sterile planet through random chemical reactions catalyzed by high energy sources, I have to agree with you. I think there are a host of issues with this type of hypothesis, not the least that we have basically no evidence for it. I am not willing to rule it out based on thermodynamic considerations, but I admit they make a formidable hurdle for this hypothesis to turn out to be correct.
The macro-evolution theory, as defined above, is (1) in conflict with empirical science; (2) is not supported by any empirical evidence; (3) is falsified by the combination of the initial Miller-experiment and the adjusted Miller-experiment; (4) cannot be true, since if it were true complex molecules and molecular structures would become available without effort for free, putting the greater part of chemical industry out of business. The macro-evolution theory is as invalid as the theory that the earth is flat or that the sun is spinning around the earth. In the domain of religion, invalid theories are no problem. In the domain of science, invalid theories need to be removed, even if no scientific alternative theory is available yet (that is a theory that is falsifiable and therefore testable in some way). In such an instance, the position "We don't know yet" can be taken. This position is quite normal in any branch of science and contributes to the integrity and progress of science.
quote:
William , posted 26. September 2006. When a lump of liquid stone in space cools down, it sweats out gasses. Gravity will prevent the gas molecules to move right away into space, resulting in an atmosphere of gasses around the planet. At 100.000 km distance from the planet, no gasses are present. Therefore, a difference of concentration exists between the planet's atmosphere and space. Empirical science teaches us that any difference (e.g., of energy, temperature, complexity, concentration) will ultimately equalize. As a consequence, when the sweating out process is stopped, the planet will ultimately loose its atmosphere.
Sciwall posted 02. October 2006. Okay, but what does this have to do with 2ndEarth losing its atmosphere while our earth does not?
Our Earth is as subjected as 2ndEarth to the characteristic property of reality that any difference will ultimately equalize. The difference between the concentration of gasses in our atmosphere and the concentration of gasses at a 100,000 km distance in space will ultimately equalize. Living organisms, however, slow down the process. They antagonize the equalization of differences by binding and storing energy, and by producing gasses. If living nature is destroyed, the equalization process will speed up and soon our Earth will be as dry and hot as the moon.
quote:
William , posted 26. September 2006. In the previous discussion it was proven that putting 2ndEarth in the light of the sun results in a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
Sciwall posted 02. October 2006. Well, I just looked back again at your discussion of the 2ndEarth. I have to say your thermodynamic analysis is completely wrong on a number of levels. First off, at all times, the point on S that is behind 2ndEarth and not in direct sunlight will be hundreds of degrees colder than any point on S that is in the sunlight. Therefore, your conclusion that S in in equilibrium because there are no temperature differences on S is incorrect. Second, while not in equilibrium, the surface S will be generally in a steady-state, where the input of energy is equal to the output. However, the entropy of the input and output energy on S will be significantly different, with lower entropy energy entering S and higher entropy energy leaving S. This entropy balance is key to any thermodynamic consideration of 2ndEarth, and to leave it out blows a giant hole in any conclusions from your initial analysis, flawed as it is to begin with.
You overlook the fundamental property of our universe that any difference ultimately equalizes, including "temperature ripples". At all points on a distance of 100,000 km from 2ndEarth the temperature in space is equal.
quote:
William , posted 26. September 2006. In the domain of religion, any guess, fantasy or belief is allowed. In the domain of science, however, we need empirical evidence of the existence of resonating entropic ripples making molecules start ordering themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further.
Sciwall , posted 02. October 2006. Well, we do have some evidence - huge organized storms start from tiny atmospheric ripples that expand as they feed off planetary and solar energy. Not much I admit, but hey, its not meant to be a scientific hypothesis. I find the concept of origins fascinating, and while I have no faith in any one hypothesis over another, I try to at least consider any proposed scenario with an open mind and in accordance with the evidence.
Indeed, tiny atmospheric ripples can expand to huge storms. But these differences in velocity of gas molecules soon equalize. Another day new random ripples come up, and equalize, et cetera. Since the gas molecules will ultimately dissipate in space (see discussion above), new temporary differences in velocity of gas molecules will become smaller and smaller, and ultimately become non-existent.
SUPPLEMENTORY CONCLUSION NR. 10 FROM THE DISCUSSION SOFAR
(to be added to the 9 conclusions mentioned in my post of 12. September 2006
10. In any book on evolution, the theory can be found that random processes (of lightning) have produced billions of tons of building blocks for life in the primordial oceans in hundreds of millions of years; these building blocks started to combine themselves into ever more complex molecules, developed themselves into reproducing macro molecules, turned themselves into RNA, then into DNA, subsequently into cells, and finally these cells arranged themselves into ever complicated organisms. This macro-evolution theory is (1) in conflict with empirical science; (2) is not supported by any empirical evidence; (3) is falsified by the combination of the initial Miller experiment and the adjusted-Miller experiment; (4) cannot be true, since if it were true complex molecules and molecular structures would become available without effort for free, putting the greater part of chemical industry out of business. The macro-evolution theory is as invalid as the theory that the earth is flat or that the sun is spinning around the earth.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. October 2006 07:05
Macroevolution is not in conflict with anything because it happened. That is without question and cannot be denied by any objective observer of the fossil record. The only issue that has ever been in question is the MECHANISM by which it took place.
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) provides such a mechanism by proposing that all the information necessary for evolution was prepared in advance and front-loaded into an unknown number of organisms which were competent to produce orgaisms drastically different from themselves. These "evolvers" as I call them were the phylogenetic equivalent of the embryonic stem cells which produce the adult organism in ontogeny. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny and I am confident that both have involved similar cytogenetic mechanisms. Both processes involve the controlled release of preformed information from the chromosomes which apparently are the sole reservoirs for both phenomena. In any event chance played no role in either. Of that I am certain and I am not alone.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
Our analysis is limited at present because the "evolvers" are apparently no longer extant.
Phylogeny, like ontogeny is now, WAS self-limiting and self-terminating. The extinction of the species is analagous to the death of the individual.
It is impossible to conceive of either ontogeny or phylogeny without postulating the past existence of one or more intelligences far beyond out present capacity to comprehend. There is no need to invoke present intervention and no reason to assume that such intervention ever took place except in the very beginning.
Pierre Grasse expressed a similar view -
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis.
I would only add that I am not at all certain there was a single act of creation or a single front-loading of phylogenetic information. There are sound reasons to question such an assumption.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 03. October 2006 17:08
Hi William,
Well you say a lot I disagree with, but we can revisit some of it if we have the time, as I would first like to deal with your thermodynamic consideration of 2ndEarth.
You say -
quote:
You overlook the fundamental property of our universe that any difference ultimately equalizes, including "temperature ripples". At all points on a distance of 100,000 km from 2ndEarth the temperature in space is equal
Well, since temperature, or the measure of molecular kinetic energy, is a difficult concept to think of in a vacuum, I need a little clarification on this assertion that you use to draw your thermodynamic conclusions.
I think what you are saying here is that if you take a thermometer and placed it free floating in space at various points on the surface 'S' which is a 100,000 km out from 2ndearth, the thermometer would read the same everywhere. Is this your basic premise?
[ 03. October 2006, 19:59: Message edited by: sciwall ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. October 2006 10:28
Macroevolution is neither a theory nor an hypothesis. It is a reality which cannot be denied by any objective observer of the fossil record.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
