And my comment was a caution against expecting ridiculous miracles from nature. Thermodynamics makes life arising by natural means improbable. And we should be careful about assuming such extremely improbable events actually happened.
This is true even after prigogine’s work. It didn’t really change much other than giving an overall direction for the work and some basis in reality for just so stories.
The barrier is inheritance. i.e evolution can be kickstarted only after the first organism which can pass on its genes through some sort of reproduction arises.
However, its an interesting question to ask why only one common ancestor. If life was probable/inevitable, then there should have been many initial life forms from which the current diversity arose.
If it wasn’t inevitable, then even LUCA and all the diversity that followed is a tremendous miracle of chance.
This should be a conundrum to anyone who looks at this scenario, The current explanation of the evidence of nature involve numerous ridiculous miracles of chance. And why should chance be more acceptable to science than God? its definitely less acceptable logically.
I know its a conjecture. However, websites that report evolution seemed to habe issed this fact. Take This article from sandwalk as an example:
Anyone interested in accusing people at sandwalk of being lying pseudo scientists???
However the philosophical implications of England’s conjecture is Pantheism. i.e that the universe has an intrinsic ability to create life and consequently conscious beings.Erwin Schrodinger ended his Lecture series on “what is life” with precisely such a spiritual hypothesis… And i am not surprised. Its a direct consequence of attributing the ability to create to matter…
If i understood the idea correctly, Mr England is claiming that there is overall general tendency for nature to create structures which are more efficient at heat dissipation in some conditions (involving receiving energy continuously from an external source)… And Darwinian evolution is just a subset of this phenomenon. So ya, he is giving direction to the development of the universe by proposing a particular thermodynamic behavior.
@pevaquark: Perhaps you can confirm/correct.
Sorry for butting in… when you say;“However if you have some kind of system that has a continual energy source then you can drive it far from equilibrium”… do you mean you as in a person… or you as in nature+random chance…
The statement is confusing…
And why exactly is the probability question the wrong one? you yourself admit “random chance” cannot bring many systems far from equilibrium… (And that kind of begs the question… why not? after all random chance can drive system which are far from equilibrium by adding more and more components which are also far from equilibrium,) This is probably the reason why people like Kauffman and England view organisation as inevitable… even though they dont have much of a theoretical framework for the idea. I respect these guys for their thinking… If evolution is a natural process, then there must be a valid organizing
principle at a physics/chemistry level.
This is an unfair statement on your part. The paper that started this discussion is about whether thermodynamics allows increasing complexity similar to life… so OOL has always been in the scope of this particular argument.
Yes its perfectly possible to believe so… And such a belief would be called intelligent design/creationism.
There is no difference between the two. That’s why all textbooks on “evolution” still contain the urey miller experiment.
Evolution needs abiogenesis. If you assume God created the first life in a direct/directed manner, then you cannot turn back and say, he left the development of complexity in life to un-directed process. That would be incoherent.
Do you believe these can’t happen in equilirium/near equilibrium conditions? Water vapour condensing into water is another analogy similar to your star formation one. These are systems opposite to life forms… i.e systems that moved from thermodynamic disequilibrium to equilibrium…
This is a deceptive technique regularly used by evolutionists… You are correct in saying that.
I have seen this kind of dishonesty used to convince the masses again and again… whether its is doctored/imagined pictures or wrong analogies…
The snowflake is another such example.
My only request to the people at Biologos is not to go that route.
P.S- @pevaquark was using similar arguments until i was forced to clearly explain what the problem is . Only he was quite honest in showing these examples as how phenomenon that follow the second law seem to increase in order. He was showing how our understanding of the law and actual applications can be counter intuitive… And that’s a fair point, though not applicable to the problem of Life and hence not relevent. There is a thermodynamic problem that makes teh origin of life extremely improbable… as opposed to the formation of stars…
Given the gas clusters arise, stars will form again and again consistently… Its not an improbable event or even a miracle… till we consider how the gas clouds ended up as they did… or how intricate and mathematical the laws of physics are- which allow stars to form!.
Look science will be science… and scientist are more often wrong than right.This will be true of creationist/ID scientists as much as anyone else. So be patient … and have a waiting attitude. Just because something is considered established science today, doesn’t mean that it will remain so in the future.Even today, there a lot of agnostic/athiestic/pagan scientists who are not satisfied with the creative power of mutation and natural selection… They are looking for a more feasible creator… unfortunately, their search is bound within nature.
In the end of the day, there is a qualitative difference between divine revelation and science. Divine revelation is superior because its origins are superior.So, be patient… forming definite opinions about common ancestry/darwinism etc wont score us any Brownie points in heaven… So we need to look more closely at the world view we are promoting,
No matter what the good folks at Biologos say, a naturalistic/materialistic world view will only support athiesm or at best Pantheism/Panentheism… and if we stretch it, Deism.
So its important to resist such a world view starting from first principles.
And evolution directly bolsters and is dependent on the above viewpoint.
This is what i meant. This is also why all textbooks on evolution have a reference to experiments such as miller urey experiment. Its the contextual background on which the theory stands. If we bring in God at this point, it would undermine the entire framework of evolution.
So proponents of evolution should not do that.
Wasn’t my point… besides, when you mention “explain the devlopment of life”, you must be referring to actual mechanisms… i.e the Neo Darwinian theory. (if you mean Evolution as Common Ancestry/change in allleles; it doesn’t really explain the development of anything)
There are many scientists who think that Neo-Darwinism fails to explain the development of new classes of life. They are a minority, however they exist. So to answer your question, refutations for evolution as an explanatory mechanism would be based on whether the mechanisms mentioned can actual cause the development observed.
That’s a very valid point.
However, Spontaneous generation was about whether life could emerge from non-life in the earth now… the answer is no. No amount of Lightning striking pond nowadays will cause little cells to emerge. This means that the initial conditions from which life emerged are unknown.
This is an important point that needs to be resolved if any answer for the historical emergence of life on earth is to be found.i.e even of we are able to simulate conditions in labs that led to complex molecules/life to emerge, we need to established that such conditions could exist naturally in the early earth.