In a message dated 25/11/00 07:57:29 GMT Standard Time, DNAunion writes:
Paul Robson:
I'm confused by the "private email" stuff. I've checked my "sent
mail" and I can find two private posts : one is a two line note
about something, one might be an error, I'm not sure.
Everything else has been addressed to evolution@calvin.edu
DNAUnion:
As usual, the "evolutionist" counter argument stopped at open-system
thermodynamics and never bothered to mention the other required half of the
solution.
Paul Robson:
That's because the topic under discussion is thermodynamics.
"Evolution violates thermodynamics" "No it doesn't because..."
DNAUnion:
At no point in its 3.5 billion year history here on Earth did life
evolve solely because the Earth is an open system.
Paul Robson:
True. Chemical reactions are involved, however. The "open system"
stops it violating the oft-quoted corollary of 2LT.
Paul Robson:
Well, DNAUnion, that might be because it is directly
connected with the statement that the SLOT is violated "because
everything decays always", This argument is found in much YEC
literature. This isn't a valid criticism. If you are told "Evolution
violates
the SLOT because of the tendency of everything to decay" for example,
you can merely answer "no it doesn't because it is not a closed system".
DNAunion:
But what if the argument includes the question of how the second half
of the solution came to be (in order to provide more than a partial
explanation)?
Paul Robson:
Which argument ? I think all your "vague appeals" are just rebuttals
of the Creationist 2LT claim. There are many more than six articles
of this form.
DNAUnion:
I admit that the response I quoted does not pertain to this, but
that is the question that SEJones and I were asking about. "We"
are told that the Earth is an open system - that's it. That does
not answer the question of how the first cell came to be - a
sufficient energy source is not sufficient in itself to evolve a cell
from scratch.
Paul Robson:
I agree. But these posts aren't about that. They are a refutation
of claims pertaining to the SLOT. It's a different topic of
conversation.
Asking about the mechanisms of evolution is a perfectly valid
question, but it isn't part of the rebuttal of the thermodynamics
claim.
No-one is saying that OST is sufficient for evolution, just that
SLOT is not violated by evolution.
DNAUnion:
"Okay", one might might say, "but that pertains exclusively
to the origin of life, and not evolution".
Paul Robson:
I don't think that's it. The issue is thermodynamics, and the
creationists misuse of it. I know you don't, but the claim that
"evolution violates 2LT" comes up endlessly. These articles
are pointing out misuse of thermodynamics.
Creationism (not ID) consists of 2 things: Biblical quotes, and
piles of anti-evolution arguments, Evolutionists point out the
flaws in these arguments. There are also articles on (say)
how a replicator might form, but these are invariably seperate
from rebuttals of creationist nonsense.
DNAUnion:
I think not - I think this also pertains to the big picture of evolution.
Life can evolve using available energy *only because it already
possesses those "coupling mechanisms"*, so there still remains
a basic question of how life can evolve: HOW DID IT FIRST
BECOME ABLE TO EVOLVE? Answering that an airplane
does not violate gravity when it flies is not an answer as to how
an airplane flies.
Paul Robson:
I agree. But the question stated is not "How did it first become
able to evolve ?". It is "How do you account for the fact that
evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics ?"
A lot depends on what you mean by "evolve" here ? The
mechanism of "evolution" of replicators is different to that of
the evolution of animals.
Part 3
=====
DNAunion:
As others have done, the author switches away from talking about
thermodynamics as it applies to biology to focussing on ONLY
thermodynamics. So what? What is wrong with this? Simple,
but I will need to use an analogy. ...
Paul Robson: That's because the Creationist has made a statement
about thermodynamics and the "Evolutionist" is explaining why that
statement is not true.
DNAunion:
The "Creationist" has made a statement about thermodynamics
*as it applies to evolution*, and evolution deals with life. So we
are back to discussing more than mere thermodynamics, but
the evolutionist response only addresses thermo, neglecting biology.
Paul Robson:
It's pointing out the invalid use of thermodynamics, so that the
creationist argument is falsified. He could be talking about
anything at all but the thermodynamics part is still wrong.
The statement is about thermodynamics. It states that evolution
is falsified because it violates its laws. It is pointed out that this
is not the case. It is perfectly valid to ask as a next question
"By what means does this take place" but it isn't part of the
answer to the thermodynamics question.
Paul Robson: Conclusion
========
Don't see the problem. All these are the same
Creationist: "Evolution violates SLOT because everything decays"
Evolutionist:"No it doesn't because that only applies to closed systems"
It's a rebuttal ; not a complete history of evolution.
DNAunion:
Are you *sure* that "all these are the *SAME*"? Or are some of them
just similar forms of the same basic argument?
Paul Robson:
Yes, that's much more accurate ; they are similar forms of the same
basic argument. There are variations ; such as the "only applies to
closed systems" error, the most common one I've seen.
It would be even better to say that the function of each argument is
the same (I think) namely that it is a rebuttal of a creationist claim
about thermodynamics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 25 2000 - 04:25:54 EST