>>>Paul Robson: I have read of many creationists, though who make the
argument along the lines of "Well, if being an open system isn't a problem
for evolution, why don't cars evolve from junk in a junkyard open to energy"
; something sounding remarkably in the ball park "vague appeals to OST"
If you cannot produce one person who "solely relies" on OST to do this I will
treat your claims of "frequency" as
an absurdity.
*******************************
DNAunion: Note what Paul’s statements are *actually* asking me to do:
to “produce one person who “solely relies” on OST to
[evolve cars from junk in junkyards open to energy]”. That is unless
we are allowed to too assume that Paul does not know how to use antecedents
for words such as “this”. So either we must be allowed to
classify Paul’s writing skills as sub par, or else we are forced to
conclude that he himself allows the subject of the appeal to open-system
thermodynamics to be something other than cells (vastly different, in fact).
*******************************
>>>DNAunion: Do as you feel fit. However, I already pointed out how you
yourself put forth a form of this argument when you said that appealing to
open-system thermodynamics "knocked out" the Creationists' claims. You did
not mention anything other than OST.
>>>Paul Robson: Thanks DNA. I now know it is your limited reading
comprehension. I claim it knocks out creationists claim about 2LT being
"violated by evolution". Your claim is
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell" (my emphasis) "
You have to have pretty low levels of literacy to think I "rely solely on OST
to organise functioning cells" from this statement. I don't even mention
cells at all.
*********************
DNAunion: So where did I say that you had to mention cells?
I did NOT say “… you yourself put forth EXACTLY this
argument…”, I said “… you yourself put forth *A FORM
OF* this argument…”. The basic nature and structure of the
argument is the same in my original and in your form of it:
“Creationists/IDists argue that [a biological process that involves
large increases in order] cannot occur by purely-natural processes because
that would require the violation of the 2nd law, but open-system
thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong”. This is the basic
pattern, or template, of the argument: one just needs to fill in the single
variable: and “regular” biological evolution and the evolution of
the first biological cells are closely related (we ain’t talkin’
bout no cars hear). Both my original, and yours that I mentioned was
similar, are arguments of the same logical *FORM*. They are not identical,
and I made it clear (to someone who can read!) that I was not stating they
were.
Finally, why do you feel it is perfectly valid for you to take the discussion
off into things as unrelated as cars in junkyards, BASED ON THE SAME FORM OF
ARGUMENT, but that what I did is invalid (even though I managed to keep the
discussion much closer to the actual subject: evolutionary biological
processes)?
*********************
>>>Paul Robson: I know you think I am being abusive when I question your
literacy but this makes me think you either can't/won't understand, or don't
bother to read what I write. You write "this is a form of this argument" ; it
quite clearly isn't.
*********************
DNAunion: I suggest you wipe the cobwebs and dust off your decaying
dictionary, look up the term “form”, and see if you can find one
definition that fits my usage. You will find that like Prego,
“It’s in there”.
********************
>>>Paul Robson: For it to be "a form of this argument" it has to say
something like "I think OST explains
the existence of functioning cells from organics on its own".
********************
DNAunion: No, that would be THE SAME argument, just reworded. A FORM of an
argument is not so narrowly restricted. The following are both arguments of
the same logical form.
“Creationists/IDists argue that [the origin of the first cells] cannot
occur by purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of
the 2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be
wrong.”
“Creationists argue that [evolution] cannot occur by purely-natural
processes because that would require the violation of the 2nd law, but
open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong.”
The logical form of the arguments are the same: “Creationists/IDists
argue that [a biological process that involves large increases in order]
cannot occur by purely-natural processes because that would require the
violation of the 2nd law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to
be wrong”.
(By the way, the order of wording is not important. Even if the second form
were reworded to, “Open-system thermodynamics alone shows that
Creationists are wrong when they claim that evolution cannot occur because
that would require the 2nd law to be violated.”, the logical form of
the argument would not differ).
********************
>>>Paul Robson: It ought to be obvious to almost anyone that I was writing
about rebutting the claims made in almost every Creationist book about OST.
********************
DNAunion: And it ought to be obvious to almost anyone that I did not say
that the two arguments were *exactly* the same, or even simply *the same*.
********************
>>>DNAUnion: Second, here is something Chris Cogan recently wrote, and my
reply:
"Ccogan: Since reproduction can occur either as a mere catalytic process, a
template-using process, or as a process of creation and assembly of
components (as in virus replication), there are plenty of ways in which the
Sun's energy, and the energy from the core of the Earth itself, etc., can
promote reproduction once this energy has brought about enough natural
"mixing" of existing components to produce the first simple and suitable
replicator. "
>>>Paul Robson: You claim
"those who rely SOLELY on vague appeals to open-system thermodynamics to
explain the ordering and organizing of simple organics into a functioning
cell" (my emphasis) "
This appears to be a statement about the creation of the first simple and
suitable replicator. [As you only gave a small amount the last few words
appear to be the only indication of context].
*****************
DNAunion: Blind to his own practices, but critical of those of others. Paul
implies I might have done something wrong in my quoting, while of course he
surely doesn’t (after all, people in glass houses wouldn’t throw
stones, would they?). But let’s take look at an actual word count of
the 2 above quotes.
DNAunion’s quote of Chris: 71 words.
Paul’s quote of DNAunion: 23 words.
But wait, there’s more (a lot more). Paul interrupted what I actually
quoted. My quote from the exchange between Chris and me was actually much
longer (Paul chopped it up in order to interject his words of wisdom). I had
quoted my full reply to Chris’s statement, so we need to add another
157 words to the total length of the original quote, bringing the final
score to:
DNAunion: 143
Paul: 23
Wow! I wouldn’t expect to see such a lopsided score unless the Harlem
Globetrotters took on a kindergarten class! (I love sarcasm – could
you tell????)
In addition, when Paul quoted me, he didn’t even include a single full
sentence. Furthermore, the phrasing he did quote is incomplete: what about
those people identified?
And yet Paul feels “mightier than thou” enough to
“implicate” me for my above “questionable” quoting?
Go figure.
****************
>>>Paul Robson: It says "the energy has brought enough mixing to produce the
first simple replicator" (paraphrase).
It doesn't appear to be a claim about "functioning cells".
To fit your description, he (she ?) has to claim that this "natural mixing"
SOLELY produces a FUNCTIONING CELL.
**********************
DNAunion: No. To fit the logic of my argument/statement exactly, he would
have needed to say that. But for his statements to be basically a form of
my argument/statement, no such stringent criteria apply. The logical form of
the argument is maintained: “Creationists/IDists argue that [a
biological process that involves large increases in order] cannot occur by
purely-natural processes because that would require the violation of the 2nd
law, but open-system thermodynamics alone shows them to be wrong.”
The biological processes - (1) the origin of the first-replicators and (2)
the origin of the first cells – are both closely related, keeping the
logic of the argument fairly close (remember, the logic of the rest of the
argument remains the same between both forms). In fact, since both of these
topics involve events that occurred between about 4 and 3.8 billion of years
ago, they are related in many ways. For example, the approximate time of
occurrence is nearly identical (on a geological scale), neither has left any
physical evidence of how they occurred (if they indeed did occur here on
Earth), neither has a convincing natural explanation, both can be considered
the origin of life (depending on one’s definition of life), both are
origins of major biological entities (whether replicators are considered
living or not), both involve a large increase in order and complexity, etc.
**********************
>>>Paul Robson: You can't read, can you DNAUnion ?
***********************
DNAunion: If I can’t read, then why are you writing back to me?
***********************
>>>Paul Robson: You don't know what the word "solely" means, do you ?
***********************
DNAunion: Sure I do. By the way, if your point is that I don’t know
what “solely” means, then why didn’t you give examples of
my misuse in your post???? One could find many ways to nit-pick the usage of
that term (and you appear to be a master at that art).
***********************
>>>Paul Robson: You don't know what a "functioning cell" is do you ?
***********************
DNAunion: Shore eye does, it is won of them thar squishy little bag thingies
with little thing-a-ma-bobs floating around in the sap that do this stuff and
that stuff and sum other stuff, and this hole thingy – wells, at lease
accordin’ to them thar evolutionists- digi-volved (well, thats what my
youngins calls it) from sum unknownst whatchamacallits that could make other
whatchamacallits. But w’all no that nature used somethin’ called
“open-sesame thermo-mometers”, or somethin, in some mysterious
weigh - mixing goop with glop and stuff - and woundeded up taklin’
that there tendon, see, the second most importanest law imposes on stuff and
what-not to get littler and littler ordered – wha’, wear waz eye?
– oh yea’, it dun takled it two tha ground like a cowboy roping
doggies at one of them thar rodeo shows. Gee willickers, eye shore wished
eye was learned enuf in skool to be won of them thar rodeo peoples. (I told
you all I love sarcasm!
)
***********************
>>>Paul Robson: You just see what you want to see, read what you *think* is
there and then reply to it.
*********************
DNAunion: Good thing YOU don’t do that, huh.
*********************
>>>DNAunion: First, you listed three "independent" methods of reproduction,
as if any one of the three can stand by itself. But these are not
independent. "[A]ssembly of components (as in virus replication)" does not
occur without there first being "a template-processing process", which does
not occur without a "catalytic process". Note also that you later state,
"even the simplest catalytic process is "code-driven,"", which seems to
further entangle these "independent" processes of reproduction.
>>>Paul Robson: I fail to see what this response has to do with your claim ;
which I now believe you cannot substantiate.
*******************
DNAunion: You are a hard person to please (because you are being
unreasonable). You implied above that I didn’t provide enough of the
quote, yet here, dealing with the same exact continuous quote, you say I
provided too much???
This part of the quote wasn’t intended to relate to my claim: it was
included so that people like you could see the full quote and know that I
hadn’t selectively quoted. I don’t always provide additional
material such as this, but I don’t see how my doing so here detracts
from my character in any way.
Paul, why not give your typing fingers and brain a rest – you
don’t have to try to come up with some implication of wrong doing on
my part for every one of my statements.
*******************
>>>DNA Union: Second, you have glazed over some of the most important steps
on the way to life: how the first self-replicators arose. You have basically
done what Paul Robson claims no evolutionist does! You have presented a
*vague appeal* to open-system thermodynamics ("there are plenty of ways in
which the Sun's energy, and the energy from the core of the Earth itself,
etc., can promote reproduction once this energy has brought about enough
natural "mixing" of existing components to produce the first simple and
suitable replicator.")
>>>Paul Robson: You see, its difficult to tell if this is dishonesty,
ignorance, wish fulfilment or just plain idiocy.
******************
DNAunion: I’m sorry, I can’t read. What did you say? Whatever
it was, I am sure it was very polite and soothing.
******************
>>>Paul Robson: I agree wholeheartedly that this first part could classify
as a "vague appeal to OST". Unfortunately it fails on the "solely responsible
for producing a functioning cell" part.
*****************
DNAunion: Well I disagree with your agreement. The first part that should
classify should be extended to become “vague appeal to OST
solely”. Doing so leaves only the fact that Chris’s addresses
self-replicators while mine addresses cells. This discrepancy does show that
the two are not IDENTICAL, but I didn’t say that they were.
Look back at my actual words (above) and you will see that I did NOT say,
“You have *DONE EXACTLY* what Paul Robson claims no evolutionist
does!”. What I said was, “You have *BASICALLY* done what Paul
Robson claims no evolutionist does!”. See the difference? *WHO* is it
that can’t read?
*****************
>>>Paul Robson: It seems to be that Chris is claiming that energy from the
sun would be sufficient to produce a simple replicator.
*****************
DNAunion: It appears as though you are agreeing with me that Chris relied
solely on open-system thermodynamics in his post. Again, the only
“objection” you seem to be trying to raise is that Chris’s
dealt with self-replicators while mine dealt with cells. The rest of the
argument is identical, and the rather slight change involved (going from one
large increase in order associated with a biological entity billion of years
ago to a large increase in order associated with another biological entity
billions of years ago) hardly seems to qualify my statement that they are
*BASICALLY* (not exactly) the same as inaccurate.
*****************
>>>Paul Robson: For this to fit your allegedly "frequently" stated argument
there has to be rather more than a simple replicator.
*****************
DNAunion: Only if I had called the two identical or exactly the same.
I purposefully qualified my statements with the words “form of”
and “basically” because I knew they were not identical. Had I
thought they were actually the same, I would have explicitly stated
“the exact same”. It is odd how several people nit-pick my
statements to death, yet blatantly overlook such obvious, intentionally-added
phrases I use to qualify my statements (ironically, to PREVENT wasting so
much time defending my statements).
My point in bringing up those instances was to show that at this very site,
in the span of just a couple of days, two separate individuals (who both knew
better) relied on open-system thermodynamics alone to counter a claim made by
Creationists/IDists about a biological process that goes against
matter’s general tendency towards increasing disorder. The implication
is, if something that close to being the “real thing” occurs that
frequently here, then it is not that illogical to conclude that the
“real thing” does occur frequently when the entire internet and
years of debates are taken into consideration.
*****************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 21:28:48 EST