PDA

View Full Version : Math prof attacks the "open" explanation for 2TD

bob b
January 3rd, 2006, 04:33 PM

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128

bowhunter
January 3rd, 2006, 06:43 PM
Well this doesnt mean anything, cause he basis his arguments on facts. We all know that evolution is true because it is based on guesses that are determined by any answer except a creator.

noguru
January 3rd, 2006, 07:04 PM

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9128

Very interesting. I bet this has never happened before. :yawn:

Mr Jack
January 4th, 2006, 03:47 AM
*yawn*

Same old, same old.

If the profs arguments worked they'd make giving birth impossible. Evolution contains nothing that reproduction does not.

noguru
January 4th, 2006, 05:43 AM
*yawn*

Same old, same old.

If the profs arguments worked they'd make giving birth impossible. Evolution contains nothing that reproduction does not.

How do you turn a scambled egg back into an unscrambled egg?

Feed it to a chicken.

Mr Jack
January 4th, 2006, 07:36 AM
How do you turn a scambled egg back into an unscrambled egg?

Feed it to a chicken.

Excellently put.

One Eyed Jack
January 4th, 2006, 08:05 AM
How do you turn a scambled egg back into an unscrambled egg?

Feed it to a chicken.

Chickens aren't closed systems. They intake food and air and have the mechanisms necessary to make use of these things.

Mr Jack
January 4th, 2006, 08:27 AM
Chickens aren't closed systems. They intake food and air and have the mechanisms necessary to make use of these things.

Which elegantly demonstrates the utter uselessness of order as an analogy for entropy. Evolution requires nothing that a chicken (or any other living thing you care to mention) doesn't do on a regular basis.

One Eyed Jack
January 4th, 2006, 09:11 AM
Which elegantly demonstrates the utter uselessness of order as an analogy for entropy.

Who's trying to use order as an analogy for entropy? I thought they were opposites.

Mr Jack
January 4th, 2006, 09:43 AM
Who's trying to use order as an analogy for entropy? I thought they were opposites.

Same difference: Entropy is a quantative value, so describing one end of the scale as disorder is still using order as an analogy. The use of the terms order and disorder for entropy decrease and increase (respectively) is highly misleading, IMO, because the common usage of these words does not match up well with the technical usage.

bob b
January 4th, 2006, 01:26 PM
Chickens aren't closed systems. They intake food and air and have the mechanisms necessary to make use of these things.

The key word is of course "mechanism".

noguru
January 4th, 2006, 02:24 PM
YECs love to assume that SLoT is the ultimate law of the universe. It fits their argument well to believe this law dominates all other forces in the universe. And of course we are brought back to the question of whether the universe is a closed system. The answer to this cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. And we know how much YECs hate uncertainty.

Bob, OEJ do you believe as Hilston does, that God is directly responsible for bringing and keeping atoms together? Should this be part of atomic theory?

OEJ, can you point me to an entirely closed system that exists outside of a labratory?

noguru
January 4th, 2006, 02:32 PM
The key word is of course "mechanism".

Yes, "natural mechanism". Those would be DNA and metabolism. Do you think that either of these mechanisms are "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

billwald
January 4th, 2006, 04:02 PM
'I offered the tautology that "if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable." '

Tautology is circular reasoning.

bob b
January 4th, 2006, 04:57 PM
Yes, "natural mechanism". Those would be DNA and metabolism. Do you think that either of these mechanisms are "unnatural" or "supernatural"?

The coding system of DNA certainly did not come about due to random mutation.

bobmyers
January 4th, 2006, 05:03 PM
The coding system of DNA certainly did not come about due to random mutation.

This is simple an assertion, containing neither evidence nor argument. Please try again.

Stratnerd
January 4th, 2006, 06:47 PM
Who's trying to use order as an analogy for entropy? I thought they were opposites. I don't think the two tings are equivalent although we tend to envision an orderly system a system which has greater free energy and less entropy.

However, many self organizing systems have lower energy states when they are more ordered. What comes to mind is the self organizing systems of fibers in muscle - myosin and actin filaments spontaneously form organized bundles.

Likewise, an organizedDNA molecule also forms from many individual nucleotide triphospates that together, can hardly be said to be organized. On the whole entropy increases (as it must) but organized bits come out.

But I found the article a little incoherent. Well written but he starts out with some nonbiology, plugs his book, talks about entropy, then makes an argument about intermediates not being useful, then concludes that the second law is broken.

Maybe, someone can summarize his argument for me, I just don't get it.

One Eyed Jack
January 5th, 2006, 12:38 AM
YECs love to assume that SLoT is the ultimate law of the universe.

It's certainly a fundamental law of physics. Do you deny this?

It fits their argument well to believe this law dominates all other forces in the universe.

I don't think you understand my view well enough to make this claim.

And of course we are brought back to the question of whether the universe is a closed system.

Are you aware of any other systems with which the physical universe interacts?

The answer to this cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.

If the universe isn't a closed system, then we have a fundamental law of physics with no applicability. You don't see a problem with that?

And we know how much YECs hate uncertainty.

We don't hate uncertainty any more than you do.

Bob, OEJ do you believe as Hilston does, that God is directly responsible for bringing and keeping atoms together? Should this be part of atomic theory?

I don't believe God micromanages every aspect of the universe, if that's what you're asking.

OEJ, can you point me to an entirely closed system that exists outside of a labratory?

It seems that you're under the impression that scientists can create a closed system in a laboratory. Is this correct, and if so, can you provide any examples thereof?

Mr Jack
January 5th, 2006, 05:07 AM
It's certainly a fundamental law of physics. Do you deny this?

What do you mean by that? I don't think it is fundemental law at all. It's a statistical property that is emergent from the behaviour of more fundemental laws. It does, after all, occur in neither General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory - which are our current most fundamental laws of Physics.

bob b
January 5th, 2006, 10:06 AM
This is simple an assertion, containing neither evidence nor argument. Please try again.

Do you really believe that the DNA coding system arose as a result of random mutations?

Bob, OEJ do you believe as Hilston does, that God is directly responsible for bringing and keeping atoms together?

How would anyone possibly know?

Should this be part of atomic theory?

No, it is not necessary to do so, even though it might ultimately be true. I would asume that God would act in this world in a regular manner which we would call "Laws of Nature", and hence one can confidently conduct studies in physics on that basis (in other words it would appear that God is not capricious). However, at the atomic level it is well known that atoms should eventually decay in their orbits, but for some unknown reason they don't. Whether this is for some "natural" reason or not is still an unsolved mystery at this point in time. Theories do abound.

Mr Jack
January 5th, 2006, 10:21 AM
Do you really believe that the DNA coding system arose as a result of random mutations?

I believe the differing DNA coding systems arose through a mixture of random mutation, natural selection and physics.

bob b
January 5th, 2006, 10:31 AM
What do you mean by that? I don't think it is fundemental law at all. It's a statistical property that is emergent from the behaviour of more fundemental laws. It does, after all, occur in neither General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory - which are our current most fundamental laws of Physics.

As bobmyers has said:

This is simple an assertion, containing neither evidence nor argument.

The Laws of Thermodynamics seem to be the most firmly established as any in physics.

As Isaac Asimov once titled an article on that subject, "If You Bet Against The Laws Of Thermodynamics You Will Lose".

I believe the differing DNA coding systems arose through a mixture of random mutation, natural selection and physics.

Do you also believe in perpetual motion, and if not why not?

Mr Jack
January 5th, 2006, 10:34 AM
If OEJ would clarify what he means by fundamental then the question can be answered more fully, as it stands we are left to draw our own conclusions.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are certainly well established (although as I've pointed out before, they are violated at the quantum level), but that does not make them fundamental.

bob b
January 5th, 2006, 11:08 AM
If OEJ would clarify what he means by fundamental then the question can be answered more fully, as it stands we are left to draw our own conclusions.

The Laws of Thermodynamics are certainly well established (although as I've pointed out before, they are violated at the quantum level), but that does not make them fundamental.

The word "violated" is inappropriate. It would be better to say that since they are statistical in nature they can not be directly applied at the quantum level.

One Eyed Jack
January 5th, 2006, 03:27 PM
What do you mean by that?

Look it up. I'm not playing the definition game.

I don't think it is fundemental law at all.

It's a statistical property that is emergent from the behaviour of more fundemental laws. It does, after all, occur in neither General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory - which are our current most fundamental laws of Physics.

Those are theories. They aren't considered scientific laws.

bob b
January 5th, 2006, 04:32 PM
I had been under the impression from reading the professor's article that he had presented a very easy and valid way to address the question of "open" systems.

It should be obvious that shining sunlight on something will not cause it to become more "ordered" or in technical terms to reduce the entropy of anything.

The "open" argument stinks and the professor has explained quite well why that is.

Mr Jack
January 6th, 2006, 03:33 AM
Look it up. I'm not playing the definition game.

How exactly do you expect me to 'look up' what you think? Only you can tell me that.

Those are theories. They aren't considered scientific laws.

Laws and theories are the same thing. The only difference is what the fashion for naming them was at the time.

Mr Jack
January 6th, 2006, 03:34 AM
The word "violated" is inappropriate. It would be better to say that since they are statistical in nature they can not be directly applied at the quantum level.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is statistical, but the first is not. It is the first that I was refering to.

Mr Jack
January 6th, 2006, 07:13 AM
It should be obvious that shining sunlight on something will not cause it to become more "ordered" or in technical terms to reduce the entropy of anything.

And yet, it does that very thing every single day. In fact, your entire existence is based on the fact that it can do that.

It is, after all, how plants grow.

Johnny
January 6th, 2006, 11:12 AM
It should be obvious that shining sunlight on something will not cause it to become more "ordered" or in technical terms to reduce the entropy of anything.Oh boy. The exact opposite, in fact, should be blatantly obvious to a lover of science.

He's right: as long as there is an energy input things can become more ordered. The problem is that he uses a false analogy in a way. Computers don't spontaneously arrange themselves NOT because the second law prevents it, but because of the near statistical impossibility. Some may counter that the statistical impossibility of humans coming together prevents that from ever happening. You're right. Humans didn't blow together one day. We started as a single replicating protocell.

But alas, the mathematician makes the mistake of titling his paper "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" thereby directly stating this is supposed to be an argument against evolution. I don't know how much time he has devoted to studying biology, but he may have noticed that life and television sets have some very different properties.

Life replicates. It recreates itself. But not exact copies, slightly different copies. And these copies have different traits. Good traits allow more replication. And hence, a good trait will have a selective advantage. TVs do not self replicate. They do not produce variable offspring who have different selective advantages. If he is trying to say that evolution is false because its like a TV set coming together and thats impossible, then he has made a false analogy--one so horribly blatant even he should have picked up on it.

The rest of his article goes on to rehash the typical intelligent design crap.

This is one of the most empty arguments I've seen. He just put words down and pretended to make a point. Nothing to see here.

billwald
January 6th, 2006, 11:15 AM
"Laws and theories are the same thing. The only difference is what the fashion for naming them was at the time."

Not back in the days of Newton and alchemy. They equated "laws" and incantations. One did the proper procedure and said the proper prayer and God was forced to produce results.

Stratnerd
January 6th, 2006, 11:24 AM
The rest of his article goes on to rehash the typical intelligent design crap.
LOL. Took the word right out of my mouth.

A convincing argument in something that can be quantified is to present the data. Since entropy can be quantified you think he'd add that (in addition to plugging his book).

Yorzhik
January 6th, 2006, 11:49 AM
We started as a single replicating protocell.
And if I understand you correctly, you would go on to say that a mutation in the DNA of this protocell caused changes, and the changed cell (selected by natural selection) received more mutations and got selected... on and on... until human DNA was finally the form of this DNA. Is that correct?

Johnny
January 6th, 2006, 02:28 PM
And if I understand you correctly, you would go on to say that a mutation in the DNA of this protocell caused changes, and the changed cell (selected by natural selection) received more mutations and got selected... on and on... until human DNA was finally the form of this DNA. Is that correct?Roughly, yes. I agree with the general idea you're presenting. I disagree with the word "until". It implies both a goal and a finishing point, of which there is not. It's also worth noting that the mutations must be heritable. I'm sure you understand both of these points, just wanted to note them.

Stratnerd
January 6th, 2006, 02:40 PM
I think it much more likely that there wasn't a single protocell but a community of leaky protocells and leaky cells. Leaky referring to RNA/DNA being exchanged between organisms, a phenomenon we see in today's bacteria (and between bacteria and eukaryotes). So you have lineages evolving and exchanging functional genes.

bob b
January 6th, 2006, 07:21 PM
And yet, it does that very thing every single day. In fact, your entire existence is based on the fact that it can do that.

It is, after all, how plants grow.

You are confused. The seed is as ordered as the plant will ever be.

Johnny
January 6th, 2006, 08:25 PM
The seed is as ordered as the plant will ever be.No it's not. And even if it were, what about the atoms scattered randomly throughout the soil that the plant used to organized to create the seed?

It is not "downhill" from the seed, or embryo. In fact it is an uphill battle that takes place every single day. Ultimately, all the energy that is consumed to maintain our order comes from the sun.

bob b
January 6th, 2006, 08:51 PM
No it's not. And even if it were, what about the atoms scattered randomly throughout the soil that the plant used to organized to create the seed?

It is not "downhill" from the seed, or embryo. In fact it is an uphill battle that takes place every single day. Ultimately, all the energy that is consumed to maintain our order comes from the sun.

You are forgetting that the cell is essentially a "machine" and like human designed machines like refrigerators can use external energy to reduce entropy because these machines are built (designed?) to do so.

It is true that the energy to run any machine ultimately comes from the Sun, but without the machine being there entropy will inevitably increase. Of course, the entropy of the overall system, considering all inputs and outputs will increase, just as it does for the refrigerator.

Now the professor has nicely explained all this by observing that any energy coming from the Sun will not lead to a reduction of the entropy of the total system unless that input energy is itself at an average entropy level already below that of the overall system it is entering.

Of course if the sunlight strikes a plant then this "machine" is able to use such energy to lower, or at least maintain, the entropy level of the plant.

Thus, the professor seems to have falsified the "open system" argument used by evolutionist sites on the internet.

So I guess the unanswered question really is, "Where did the first entropy reducing machine come from?"

Johnny
January 7th, 2006, 12:17 PM
Now the professor has nicely explained all this by observing that any energy coming from the Sun will not lead to a reduction of the entropy of the total system unless that input energy is itself at an average entropy level already below that of the overall system it is entering.You're saying that the energy of a system CAN be decreased, but only by machines? You can go outside with your vial of chemicals and demonstrate that you don't, in-fact, need machines. All you need is free energy.

Thus, the professor seems to have falsified the "open system" argument used by evolutionist sites on the internet.First, you'll remember that the professor was supposed to be mounting an argument against evolution. You'll also remember, being the sharp creationist that you are, that abiogenesis and evolution are very different. Evolution takes over with the first replicating cell. You've already said, "You are forgetting that the cell is essentially a "machine" and ... can use external energy to reduce entropy...". So it seems that you have refuted this professor's argument on your own.

So I guess the unanswered question really is, "Where did the first entropy reducing machine come from?"Seems like you're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. As I mentioned before, you don't need a machine to reduce entropy.

bob b
January 8th, 2006, 01:34 PM
You're saying that the energy of a system CAN be decreased, but only by machines? You can go outside with your vial of chemicals and demonstrate that you don't, in-fact, need machines. All you need is free energy.

No, energy per se is not what I am discussing: it is entropy, a statistical concept that was originally formulated to cover heat transfer, but as the professor has pointed out, has more recently been expanded to cover a broader class of phenomena..

First, you'll remember that the professor was supposed to be mounting an argument against evolution. You'll also remember, being the sharp creationist that you are, that abiogenesis and evolution are very different. Evolution takes over with the first replicating cell. You've already said, "You are forgetting that the cell is essentially a "machine" and ... can use external energy to reduce entropy...". So it seems that you have refuted this professor's argument on your own.

It would seem to some that this would be true. But the reality is that the mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection cannot reduce entropy, or in other words cause an existing creature to "morph" into one which has a higher degree of ordering than what has already been programmed into the fertilized egg cell.

Seems like you're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. As I mentioned before, you don't need a machine to reduce entropy.

On the contrary you do. Can you give us an example of entropy reduction that doesn't make use of a machine (machine in this case understood in it broadest sense)?

billwald
January 8th, 2006, 02:55 PM
"No, energy per se is not what I am discussing: it is entropy, a statistical concept that was originally formulated to cover heat transfer, but as the professor has pointed out, has more recently been expanded to cover a broader class of phenomena.."

That's exactly the problem! The concept was demonstrated to handle all problems of heat transfer and later discovered that the equasions were useful for other stuff but not proven for other stuff. Only pragmatically adapted and extended.

Quasar1011
January 8th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Bob, OEJ do you believe as Hilston does, that God is directly responsible for bringing and keeping atoms together?

Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Mr Jack
January 9th, 2006, 03:47 AM
You are forgetting that the cell is essentially a "machine" and like human designed machines like refrigerators can use external energy to reduce entropy because these machines are built (designed?) to do so.

You don't need a machine at all. A patch of dark-coloured rock next to a patch of light coloured rock will do just fine. As the sunlight strikes it will warm the dark rock more than the light rock and thus decrease the entropy of the system. A bucket of water will also suffice, the surface waters will be warmed more than the lower waters causing convection currents and a decrease of entropy in the system.

Once again you're bringing in the confused notion that entropy decrease is equivalent to order at the macroscopic and subjective level. It isn't.

Mr Jack
January 9th, 2006, 03:48 AM
You are confused. The seed is as ordered as the plant will ever be.

Your ignorance of entropy is showing, bob. Everytime a plant performs photosynthesis it is performing an entropy decrease. Everytime it builds a new cell, it does the same. Without entropic decrease a plant could not grow.

One Eyed Jack
January 9th, 2006, 06:34 AM
How exactly do you expect me to 'look up' what you think?

I don't. I expect you to read what I write. If you come across a word that's beyond your vocabulary, then I expect you to look it up.

Laws and theories are the same thing.

No, they're not.

The only difference is what the fashion for naming them was at the time.

Anybody with a clue wanna set Mr. Jack straight on this?

Mr Jack
January 9th, 2006, 06:38 AM
I don't. I expect you to read what I write. If you come across a word that's beyond your vocabulary, then I expect you to look it up.
The word 'fundamental' does not have one single, clear definition. I want to know what you mean by it; apparently, you would rather spend time typing out insults than explain yourself.

Anybody with a clue wanna set Mr. Jack straight on this?
May we assume from the fact that you're choosing not to do so that you do not consider yourself to have a clue?

One Eyed Jack
January 9th, 2006, 06:39 AM

One Eyed Jack
January 9th, 2006, 06:41 AM
The word 'fundamental' does not have one single, clear definition.

Figure it out by the context then. I'm not your schoolteacher -- you should have learned how to do this when you were a kid.

May we assume from the fact that you're choosing not to do so that you do not consider yourself to have a clue?

See above. :)

Mr Jack
January 9th, 2006, 06:53 AM

Yes, I've seen such statements before. They're simply not true. Specifically:

Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.

Newton's Laws of Motion were superceded by Einstein's more accurate, and more certain, Theory of General Relativity. Similar examples can be plucked from other areas of science. My statement that laws and theories are the same thing is a slight overstatement in that a law tends to be a single statement rather than a working body, but the notion that the terms Theory and Law indicate differing levels in the scientific certainity is simply false.

One Eyed Jack
January 9th, 2006, 07:18 AM
Yes, I've seen such statements before. They're simply not true.

According to whom -- you? Give me one good reason why I should take your word over that of a university's science department.

Mr Jack
January 9th, 2006, 07:31 AM
According to whom -- you? Give me one good reason why I should take your word over that of a university's science department.

One Eyed Jack
January 9th, 2006, 07:40 AM

No, you didn't.

I read it, and I see no reason (much less a good one) why I should take your word over that of a university's science department. I think the people in the science department have a better idea of what constitutes science than you do.

Mr Jack
January 9th, 2006, 09:21 AM
I read it, and I see no reason (much less a good one) why I should take your word over that of a university's science department. I think the people in the science department have a better idea of what constitutes science than you do.

I think that you should read the arguments and make up your own mind. The position your siding with is empirically false. It may describe a desired idealisation of how science should work but it is factually not a description of how real science works.

One Eyed Jack
January 9th, 2006, 09:50 AM
I think that you should read the arguments and make up your own mind.

Well, let's see. They're a science department, and you're just some guy on the internet who probably got his definitions from talkorigins. This is a no brainer. I'll go with their definitions of scientific law and scientific theory over yours any day.

The position your siding with is empirically false.

I'm siding with the university. If you think their position is empirically false, then you need to demonstrate that. You might also want to send them an email letting them know that their science curriculum doesn't meet with your approval.

It may describe a desired idealisation of how science should work but it is factually not a description of how real science works.

I'm not arguing about how science works. I'm arguing that scientific laws and scientific theories are different things. Have you forgotten the argument, or are you just looking for more nits to pick?

Mr Jack
January 9th, 2006, 10:50 AM
Ah, the irony of a Creationist telling me I should just listen to the real scientists.

billwald
January 9th, 2006, 10:56 AM
The point of seed and plant should be that the seed is evidence that the plant reducibly complex - the proper meaning of the words, "reducibly complex." The complexity of the seed can be reduced to its DNA & etc referring to the amount of information needed to describe it. "Irriducibly complex" refers to descreiption, not hardware.

Yorzhik
January 9th, 2006, 10:58 AM
Roughly, yes. I agree with the general idea you're presenting. I disagree with the word "until". It implies both a goal and a finishing point, of which there is not. It's also worth noting that the mutations must be heritable. I'm sure you understand both of these points, just wanted to note them.
The word 'until' is only used to represent succession.

That being said, would you then agree "Roughly, yes. I agree with the general idea you're presenting." without a qualifier on the word "until"?

And, yes, it is noted and agreed that the mutations must be heritable.

Yorzhik
January 9th, 2006, 11:02 AM
I think it much more likely that there wasn't a single protocell but a community of leaky protocells and leaky cells. Leaky referring to RNA/DNA being exchanged between organisms, a phenomenon we see in today's bacteria (and between bacteria and eukaryotes). So you have lineages evolving and exchanging functional genes.
We can include this method to the general understanding of "mutations must be heritable", correct?

billwald
January 9th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Sewell's error is accepting Behe's math instead of Claude Shannon's math. Strange for a math prof.

Yorzhik
January 9th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Sewell's error is accepting Behe's math instead of Claude Shannon's math. Strange for a math prof.
I, no doubt, would follow Shannon before Behe when it comes to math. I'm only familiar with Shannon's work on a lay level, and on that level I don't see where Behe contradicted Shannon. Could you demonstrate?

billwald
January 9th, 2006, 06:22 PM
"Complexity" is a term in information theory. The word is not applied to hardware. Behe claims a mousetrap is irriducibly complex. In information theory a random string is irriducibly complex because any attempt to restate it in a different produces a longer string. Can the information in a mouse trap be restated in a different form that is more compact? If so, the trap is not irriducibly complex.

So if Behe wants to apply information theory to a biological component then an eyeball is far from irriducibly complex because the entire body can be described by a microscopic string of DNA.

koban
January 9th, 2006, 06:39 PM
"Complexity" is a term in information theory. The word is not applied to hardware. Behe claims a mousetrap is irriducibly complex. In information theory a random string is irriducibly complex because any attempt to restate it in a different produces a longer string. Can the information in a mouse trap be restated in a different form that is more compact? If so, the trap is not irriducibly complex.

So if Behe wants to apply information theory to a biological component then an eyeball is far from irriducibly complex because the entire body can be described by a microscopic string of DNA.

Just for fun, check this site (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html) out for a refutation of Behe's claim.

Johnny
January 9th, 2006, 08:43 PM
No, energy per se is not what I am discussing: it is entropyYes, I meant entropy.

It would seem to some that this would be true. But the reality is that the mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection cannot reduce entropy, or in other words cause an existing creature to "morph" into one which has a higher degree of ordering than what has already been programmed into the fertilized egg cell.So in other words "Yes I have unintentionally refuted the professor's argument, but back to the mutations + natural selection thing.." Furthermore, you are more highly ordered than the cell you came from.

Can you give us an example of entropy reduction that doesn't make use of a machine (machine in this case understood in it broadest sense)?The diels-alder reaction (http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/enrgtop.htm).

Yorzhik
January 9th, 2006, 09:37 PM
Just for fun, check this site (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html) out for a refutation of Behe's claim.
It's interesting, but McDonald doesn't do much to refute irreducable complexity. The problem isn't the number of pieces, the problem is the function of the pieces as originally designed and their ability to be used virtually unchanged in a new design. That would refute irriducable complexity. McDonald takes huge leaps with each design and somehow thinks that if the number of changes is small, then the kind of changes must be simple - and that just doesn't follow.

koban
January 9th, 2006, 10:11 PM
It's interesting, but McDonald doesn't do much to refute irreducable complexity. The problem isn't the number of pieces, the problem is the function of the pieces as originally designed

:hammer:

Great, then everything's irreducibly complex, if you have to refer to the "original" design. :rolleyes:

and their ability to be used virtually unchanged in a new design.

Are you saying that if the components are used in different combinations, that would prove reducible complexity?

That would refute irreducible complexity. McDonald takes huge leaps with each design and somehow thinks that if the number of changes is small, then the kind of changes must be simple - and that just doesn't follow.

Did you open the link and read it? McDonald's first attempt was to refute Behe's own description of irreducible complexity: "If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex." (Behe, 1996).

Behe then modified his description of irreducible complexity in such a manner that McDonald interpreted it to mean "but he seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity; it is necessary to show how something could be built up, step by step, with each addition or modification of a part improving the function."

This description is what Mcdonald was addressing in the website posted, and he did it ably.

Just for fun, how do you describe irreducible complexity?

BTW, I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Behe.27s_own_Criticisms) interesting:

Behe's own Criticisms
In his "Reply to My Critics"[11], Behe admitted that there was a "defect" in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection". Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place." In that article, Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work". However, such work has not yet been published.

Yorzhik
January 10th, 2006, 01:43 AM
GA, my reply to billwald didn't appear. I'll have to see if I just forgot to hit the "submit reply" button.

Anyhow, back to the show.

:hammer:

Great, then everything's irreducibly complex, if you have to refer to the "original" design. :rolleyes:
Sorry, that would be me trying keep from being long winded. However, you should have figured it out anyway. The original design does not refer to something necessarily irreducibly complex. The idea to disprove irreducible complexity is to take that thing we start (that isn't irreducibly complex) and move it with small changes to the thing that was claimed to be irreducibly complex.

Are you saying that if the components are used in different combinations, that would prove reducible complexity?
No.

Yes.

McDonald's first attempt was to refute Behe's own description of irreducible complexity: "If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex." (Behe, 1996).
And McDonald's first attempt did not remove any of those parts.

Behe then modified his description of irreducible complexity in such a manner that McDonald interpreted it to mean "but he seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity; it is necessary to show how something could be built up, step by step, with each addition or modification of a part improving the function."

This description is what Mcdonald was addressing in the website posted, and he did it ably.
Yes, he did it ably for people that don't think through the subject. If you think that McDonald removed some parts in the first diagram, then you would be someone who didn't think throught the subject.

Just for fun, how do you describe irreducible complexity?
Although Behe's original definition is not bad, I like Dembski's:
William Dembski's Enhanced Definition

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

BTW, I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Behe.27s_own_Criticisms) interesting:
So did I.

koban
January 10th, 2006, 07:20 AM
GA, my reply to billwald didn't appear. I'll have to see if I just forgot to hit the "submit reply" button.

Anyhow, back to the show.

Sorry, that would be me trying keep from being long winded. However, you should have figured it out anyway. The original design does not refer to something necessarily irreducibly complex. The idea to disprove irreducible complexity is to take that thing we start (that isn't irreducibly complex) and move it with small changes to the thing that was claimed to be irreducibly complex.

No.

Yes.

OK so far, and I had hoped I was misunderstanding you.

And McDonald's first attempt did not remove any of those parts.

I'm looking at it (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html) right now, and he takes it from a four piece mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) as per Behe's original description, down to a functioning three piece mousetrap, on to a functioning two piece mouse trap, and finally to a functioning single piece mouse trap.

Take note that nowhere does Behe address the issue of a part serving several functions.

Yes, he did it ably for people that don't think through the subject. If you think that McDonald removed some parts in the first diagram, then you would be someone who didn't think throught the subject.

OK, without changing Behe's description of "irreducible complexity", since that is what McDonald is refuting, show me the error in his process.

Although Behe's original definition is not bad, I like Dembski's:

William Dembski's Enhanced Definition

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

That looks good on the surface, but in order to be clear, I'd want the bolded terms defined explicitly. If you're interested, do it in terms of the basic mousetrap.

billwald
January 10th, 2006, 11:10 AM
>Furthermore, you are more highly ordered than the cell you came from.

Define "order." Propose a numerical scheme for measuring and comparing order.

Yorzhik
January 10th, 2006, 12:26 PM
"Complexity" is a term in information theory. The word is not applied to hardware.
It certainly can be.

billwald continues:

Behe claims a mousetrap is irriducibly complex. In information theory a random string is irriducibly complex because any attempt to restate it in a different produces a longer string. Can the information in a mouse trap be restated in a different form that is more compact? If so, the trap is not irriducibly complex.
Honestly, I like this trend where Shannon is being used in a discussion of biological information. Just remember, you brought it up first.

I have no problem with saying that if we apply Shannon's information theory to the mouse trap that it won't stand up under the created definition of irreducibly complexity in the context of Shannon's theory. The mouse trap is an analogy and all analogies break down at some point. But if we want to get more technical and make the analogy fit, the mousetrap would still be irreducibly complex even by Shannon's measure.

So if Behe wants to apply information theory to a biological component then an eyeball is far from irriducibly complex because the entire body can be described by a microscopic string of DNA.
You don't understand the argument. The machine of the eye and the DNA are the same in this context.

Yorzhik
January 10th, 2006, 01:46 PM
I'm looking at it (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html) right now, and he takes it from a four piece mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) as per Behe's original description, down to a functioning three piece mousetrap, on to a functioning two piece mouse trap, and finally to a functioning single piece mouse trap.

Take note that nowhere does Behe address the issue of a part serving several functions.
All the parts are still there. If it a problem with Behe's definition, then understand that when "part" is mentioned, "function per part" is implied.

OK, without changing Behe's description of "irreducible complexity", since that is what McDonald is refuting, show me the error in his process.
He begins by assuming that multitasking a part removes its specified complexity.

Here are some pretty direct answers from Behe himself on these exact points: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm

That looks good on the surface, but in order to be clear, I'd want the bolded terms defined explicitly. If you're interested, do it in terms of the basic mousetrap.
It would be a machine constructed with a group of parts such that if the parts (read: the functions of the parts) are altered the machine doesn't work.

billwald
January 10th, 2006, 07:52 PM
"It's interesting, but McDonald doesn't do much to refute irreducable complexity. The problem isn't the number of pieces, the problem is the function of the pieces as originally designed"

AAAAAAAAGH! The point of mutation plus selection is that there isn't any design. Behe has "presupposed" <G> what he wishes to prove.

koban
January 10th, 2006, 08:44 PM
All the parts are still there. If it a problem with Behe's definition, then understand that when "part" is mentioned, "function per part" is implied.

Nope.

Like Billwald said, that's presupposing the answer.

Not gonna go that silly Hilston route.

He begins by assuming that multitasking a part removes its specified complexity.

Nope again.

He began by assuming Behe's defintion wasn't a moving target.

Here are some pretty direct answers from Behe himself on these exact points: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm

Got as far as the intro and my eyes glazed over. If Behe wasn't clever enough to ID the obvious flaws in his initial description, I'm not interested in watching him cover his butt.

It would be a machine constructed with a group of parts such that if the parts (read: the functions of the parts) are altered the machine doesn't work.

:darwinsm:

Then I guess you win!

Seriously, what's the point of this silly exercise?

Bob Hill
January 10th, 2006, 09:14 PM
I majored in chemistry, physics and biology for a number of years when I was in college. One thing I learned in physics about the 2nd law of thermodynamics was the absoluteness of this law. It is always true that in every action and chemical reaction some energy is lost in the process. Although it seems that evolutionists would like to change this law, it is the basis of every action in the universe.

This second law of thermodynamics was scientifically established by Rudolph Clausius in 1850.

In 1991, a guy named Atkins wrote in his book, Atoms, Electrons and Change, “With the concept of entropy in mind, we can understand the force of Clausius’ remark that The entropy of the universe tends to increase. . . It is a more erudite, less picturesque (but potentially quantitatively powerful) way of saying that the universe tends to decay into disorder and chaos.” This law of science goes against evolution 100%.

In contrast, Christ was not subject to this law when He spoke the universe into existence. Psa 33:6 “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” John 1:3 “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

I think the second law was made by God when sin entered the world. Long before Clausius, God inspired Paul to write about the second law in Rom 8:19-21, “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of (ruin, destruction, dissolution, deterioration, corruption) into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

What does this mean? It means, nothing can go against the 2nd law unless energy is added to the system in an intelligent way. God did that, and man can only do it at a very minute level. But when man does it, the total entropy (randomness) in the experimenter’s small universe still tends to the direction of loss of energy, decay, disorder and chaos, never the other direction.

Bob Hill

Johnny
January 10th, 2006, 10:18 PM
Although it seems that evolutionists would like to change this law, it is the basis of every action in the universe...This law of science goes against evolution 100%.::sigh:: No it doesn't, Bob Hill. We are not a closed system.

Yorzhik
January 10th, 2006, 10:25 PM
Nope.

Like Billwald said, that's presupposing the answer.

Not gonna go that silly Hilston route.
It's not presupposing the answer. That's the point. We know we have; a machine wherein a missing part cause the machine to stop functioning. The question is; can this machine come together without intelligence?

Nope again.

He began by assuming Behe's defintion wasn't a moving target.
The definition isn't moving, but it does become more defined as callenges are raised. And having challenges raised is a good thing.

Got as far as the intro and my eyes glazed over. If Behe wasn't clever enough to ID the obvious flaws in his initial description, I'm not interested in watching him cover his butt.
It wasn't that complicated.

:darwinsm:

Then I guess you win!
This is another way of you saying I've presupposed my conclusion. You couldn't have made it more clear with this statement that you don't understand the argument.

Seriously, what's the point of this silly exercise?
Well, if you've presupposed that it is silly then I guess there is no reason. Since you have demonstrated that you don't understand the argument you may want to reassess that presupposition.

Yorzhik
January 10th, 2006, 11:13 PM
::sigh:: No it doesn't, Bob Hill. We are not a closed system.
Johnny, an opened system can only help you if the energy is controlled.

Johnny
January 11th, 2006, 10:10 AM
Johnny, an opened system can only help you if the energy is controlled.What exactly do you mean by that? Are you going to argue, like Bob B, that a "machine" is necessary to "control" the energy? Control is so vague, please elaborate and give me an example. I would argue that all you need is free energy (heat, or light). And I could provide plenty of examples of organic reactions which rely only on heat or light and in which the entropy of the system is reduced. Controlled is such a vague word. What "controls" the free energy required for the entropy reduction that takes place when a hurricane forms? What controls the entropy reduction in the diels-alder reaction (a classic organic reaction)?

Do you agree with Bob Hill's argument?

billwald
January 11th, 2006, 10:11 AM
>I think the second law was made by God when sin entered the world. Long before Clausius

Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect. Not true. SLOT causes this universe to function. If there was no SLOT in Eden then Adam couldn't stand erect without a special miracle from God because SLOT provides friction between one's feet and the ground.

Johnny
January 11th, 2006, 10:12 AM
Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect. Not true. SLOT causes this universe to function. If there was no SLOT in Eden then Adam couldn't stand erect without a special miracle from God because SLOT provides friction between one's feet and the ground.Nice.

One Eyed Jack
January 11th, 2006, 10:16 AM
>I think the second law was made by God when sin entered the world. Long before Clausius

Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect.

Not all creationists believe that.

Not true. SLOT causes this universe to function. If there was no SLOT in Eden then Adam couldn't stand erect without a special miracle from God because SLOT provides friction between one's feet and the ground.

It also enables one to digest food.

koban
January 11th, 2006, 12:22 PM
It's not presupposing the answer. That's the point. We know we have; a machine wherein a missing part cause the machine to stop functioning. The question is; can this machine come together without intelligence?

Nope. The point was that Behe made a claim without thinking through the ramifications of what he was saying and he got his hat handed to him, humorously. He's been scrambling to cover his butt ever since.

The definition isn't moving, but it does become more defined as callenges are raised.

:darwinsm:

It wasn't that complicated.

Didn't say it was. Got the jist of it from the intro, scanned the rest to make sure I was right. Behe's scrambling to cover his poorly thought out claim.

This is another way of you saying I've presupposed my conclusion.

Ya think? :chuckle:

You couldn't have made it more clear with this statement that you don't understand the argument.

Oh, I understand it all too well.

Well, if you've presupposed that it is silly then I guess there is no reason.

It's silly if you make statements like "It would be a machine constructed with a group of parts such that if the parts (read: the functions of the parts) are altered the machine doesn't work." and apply that to the example of the reducibly complex mousetrap.

Since you have demonstrated that you don't understand the argument

nope

you may want to reassess that presupposition.

What's silly is that Behe tossed McDonald a softball and McDonald smacked it out of the park, and that Behe's been trying to make the claim that he was really playing hockey.

Yorzhik
January 11th, 2006, 12:31 PM
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you going to argue, like Bob B, that a "machine" is necessary to "control" the energy? Control is so vague, please elaborate and give me an example. I would argue that all you need is free energy (heat, or light). And I could provide plenty of examples of organic reactions which rely only on heat or light and in which the entropy of the system is reduced. Controlled is such a vague word. What "controls" the free energy required for the entropy reduction that takes place when a hurricane forms? What controls the entropy reduction in the diels-alder reaction (a classic organic reaction)?
Oh, sure, there are plenty of organic reactions that take place with free energy (I've called it raw energy in the past, whether it be heat, light, radiation, or some other form of energy but free energy is probably better).

Miller/Urey is a good example. They got some organic compounds with free energy. Can you tell us what the reaction was that achieved that (please keep it simple for laymen like myself)?

Do you agree with Bob Hill's argument?
Not the part about the SLoT coming into existance after sin. But other than that, I agree for the most part.

billwald
January 11th, 2006, 12:54 PM
>>Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect.

>Not all creationists believe that.

Good! Then you also limit the effects of the fall to those specified by God? Snakes, weeds, and human child birth?

You agree that "the universe groaning" is hyperbole?

noguru
January 11th, 2006, 02:12 PM
Although it seems that evolutionists would like to change this law, it is the basis of every action in the universe...This law of science goes against evolution 100%.

::sigh:: No it doesn't, Bob Hill. We are not a closed system.

Neither is it the only variable that should be considered when analysing this situation. There are other forces and effects that constitute the makeup of the physical universe. To assume that SLoT is the only thing we need to consider is a myopic view.

Also Bob Hill, it does not say that "energy is lost". It says that energy moves towards equilibrium. This means when you open up SLoT to consider the interaction between open systems, entropy is not always increased. Since noone can show me a completely closed system, and since energy passing from a higher energy system to a lower energy system can actually decrease entropy, this concept that SLoT is the ultimate "Lord" of the universe is preposterous.

noguru
January 11th, 2006, 02:17 PM
>>Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect.

>Not all creationists believe that.

Good! Then you also limit the effects of the fall to those specified by God? Snakes, weeds, and human child birth?

You agree that "the universe groaning" is hyperbole?

Actually Bill, scripture does attribute "human child birth" to "the fall". It attributes "increased pains" in human childbirth.

Now if this description in Genesis is taken metaphorically it fits in nicey with what we know about human evolution. Increased frontal lobe size would enable us to discern good from evil, as well as increasing the pain a woman experiences during childbirth.

Johnny
January 11th, 2006, 02:31 PM
But other than that, I agree for the most part.So you're going to sit here and argue that evolution contradicts the second law? Absurd. The fact of the matter is that cells take up energy and use it to reduce entropy all day long. So it's utterly ridiculous to sit here and argue that the second law contradicts evolution (abiogenesis IS NOT evolution). Unless someone can tell me how evolution violates the second law, I expect that everyone with a brain and some honesty will refrain from using this argument again.

Oh, sure, there are plenty of organic reactions that take place with free energy (I've called it raw energy in the past, whether it be heat, light, radiation, or some other form of energy but free energy is probably better).So then what did you mean when you said that the energy must be "controlled"?

Miller/Urey is a good example. They got some organic compounds with free energy. Can you tell us what the reaction was that achieved that (please keep it simple for laymen like myself)?If I recall, they threw some water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia together and gave it free energy to play with (electrical). They found amino acids and a bunch of organic compounds (which are LOWER entropy than the reactants).

Yorzhik
January 11th, 2006, 05:13 PM
Nope. The point was that Behe made a claim without thinking through the ramifications of what he was saying and he got his hat handed to him, humorously. He's been scrambling to cover his butt ever since.
So far you haven't demonstrated that you don't understand the argument.

Perhaps we can talk through this. Why did Behe propose irreducible complexity?

It's silly if you make statements like "It would be a machine constructed with a group of parts such that if the parts (read: the functions of the parts) are altered the machine doesn't work." and apply that to the example of the reducibly complex mousetrap.
This is a test to see if you understand the argument; What is my response going to be to your quote?

Johnny
January 11th, 2006, 05:29 PM
Yorzhik, can you give an example of something in a cell that irreducibly complex?

koban
January 11th, 2006, 05:35 PM
So far you haven't demonstrated that you don't understand the argument.

Actually that's a double negative, but I'm gonna assume what you meant.

I understand what Behe was trying to say. He was careless in his first iteration.

Perhaps we can talk through this. Why did Behe propose irreducible complexity?

To demonstrate that evolution was not only improbable, but impossible.

This is a test to see if you understand the argument; What is my response going to be to your quote?

:darwinsm:

I don't understand the argument, of course!

Look Yorzhik - I don't disagree with Behe's intention, but if one is going to make statements like he made, one must be very careful to define one's terms and review one's work.

It's what good scientists do! :thumb:

Bob Hill
January 11th, 2006, 07:30 PM
All of the studies that have been done on the earth that were done in our open system have produced nothing. The results are plain, everything degrades over time unless we put controlled energy into the system. When God made the world, He put a lot of things on this earth that would have never happened without His hand in it. When an experiment is done without the living things of our world put into the experiment, no one has ever produced anything even close to life.

Bob Hill

noguru
January 11th, 2006, 07:53 PM
All of the studies that have been done on the earth that were done in our open system have produced nothing. The results are plain, everything degrades over time unless we put controlled energy into the system. When God made the world, He put a lot of things on this earth that would have never happened without His hand in it. When an experiment is done without the living things of our world put into the experiment, no one has ever produced anything even close to life.

Bob Hill

Thanks for your opinion Bob. But I think I'll stick with the more experienced people in these fields. Your repsonse shows that your thinking is not clear.

Bob Hill
January 11th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Thanks noguru,

Bob Hill

noguru
January 12th, 2006, 12:33 AM
Yorzhik, Bob Hill, when you say controlled energy are you referring to the use of a differential? You know like a magnifying glass that is used to take dispersed sunlight and concentrate it into a smaller area?

noguru
January 12th, 2006, 12:35 AM
Thanks noguru,

Bob Hill

No problem, Bob. Glad to be of service.

bob b
January 12th, 2006, 04:50 PM
What exactly do you mean by that? Are you going to argue, like Bob B, that a "machine" is necessary to "control" the energy?

Yorzik mentioned "control" not me.

What I was arguing, perhaps ineptly, was that the professor had exposed the flaw in the "open" argument by showing that any energy, et al entering an otherwise closed system would have to have a lower entropy than the system it was entering in order to reduce the total entropy of that otherwise closed system. In fact anything entering the closed system from outside would be subject to this same condition.

My statement regarding the need and ability for a "machine" to reduce entropy failed to add this caveat or "loophole" regarding the external entry condition. Sorry about that.

I might add that a cell would be considered a "machine" in this context.

It is clear that discussions of entropy are typically confusing, probably because most people, including myself, find it difficult to clearly visualize this probablistic concept. In other words it is hard to get a good "feel" for the beast. Thus the confusion between entropy and energy.

Yorzhik
January 13th, 2006, 05:05 PM
So you're going to sit here and argue that evolution contradicts the second law?
Yes.

Johnny continues:

Absurd.
We're getting to how absurd evolution according to a SLoT argument is in a bit. But it's something we'll have to work through.

Johnny continues:

The fact of the matter is that cells take up energy and use it to reduce entropy all day long. So it's utterly ridiculous to sit here and argue that the second law contradicts evolution (abiogenesis IS NOT evolution). Unless someone can tell me how evolution violates the second law, I expect that everyone with a brain and some honesty will refrain from using this argument again.
First you must concede that the first living cell was created by God and I will stop discussing abiogenesis.

-Or- you must concede that the first living cell is as old as the universe itself. If you admit that the first living cells are not as old as the universe, but that they exist now, then they either came about without intelligence or with intelligence. If without, then you must explain the natural mechanism. If with, then can you explain how you know that?

And beyond THAT, the SLoT is most damning to abiogensis, but it is still damning to the idea that the first living cell could turn into a human. But the discussion of SLoT and abiogenesis is simpler, so we'll stick with that for now.

And one more thing; don't equate current cell processes with evolution. Evolution, even after the first living cell, doesn't mean anything until you get deeper than the species level.

So then what did you mean when you said that the energy must be "controlled"?
Yah, that would be good for me to clarify. The control I'm talking about would be those times where the SLoT would have appeared to have been violated. In every case where that happens, there is most likely a machine behind it.

If I recall, they threw some water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia together and gave it free energy to play with (electrical). They found amino acids and a bunch of organic compounds (which are LOWER entropy than the reactants).
Yes. The chemical reactions to create those organic compounds are not too complicated. I think they came up with an amino acid. Can you list the chemical reaction that makes that amino acid? (if it wasn't an amino acid, it was a very important compound for "life", and that one is the only one we need to talk about at this stage)

Yorzhik
January 13th, 2006, 05:16 PM
Actually that's a double negative, but I'm gonna assume what you meant.
Oops, maybe I'll go back and fix that. Thanks for understanding.

I understand what Behe was trying to say. He was careless in his first iteration.
I think the first iteration was at the level of the idea at the time. So to say it was clarified would be okay, but to say it was contridicted or reversed would not be correct.

To demonstrate that evolution was not only improbable, but impossible.
Yeah, overall. But there are a lot of ideas put forth to do that. Why did Behe put this one forth in particular?

I don't understand the argument, of course!
Actually, no. It would have more to do with something I said in my prior post to you. It would have been the one where I answer a question that is almost the same as the question you are asking now.