Life a.k.a. evolution works forwards, not backwards. And here we are. Without a trace of the supernatural, apart from Jesus. If Jesus is God incarnate, that changes nothing in how we got here apart from that which grounds infinite being from eternity. That’s rational. TE isn’t, let alone any other form of ID.
It isn’t trillions of miracles. Nothing in evolution violates natural law. But I am guessing you would agree that God sustains all things. What makes evolution so different that God couldn’t sustain it?
The problem with “like the Bible says” is the evidence in God’s creation doesn’t support what you think the Bible says. So which is wrong?
5 Likes
I am not hand waving LM77. I am contributing in a significant way in this discussion. Now what have you contributed? What is your area of expertise?
Klax, that is the problem. The second law constrains evolution to run backwards! That was my whole point about my recent post about Prigogine. He attempted to find a way to run evolution forward but as I point out, he didn’t get far in it and that allusive new law was never found.
So you don’t call yourself a TE advocate? Isn’t there different flavors of TE? Would you be a more naturalistic TE advocate? Isn’t that one of the flavors? How would you describe yourself? Just wondering on it.
What is your significant contribution again? You deny simple, rational, common sense reality by having a greater than Nobel laureate understanding of thermodynamics demonstrated by appropriate qualification and academic career?
1 Like
I’m rational. The only possible kind of theism is through Christ actually being God incarnate, thereby proving God. Not that He does, but He’s the only positable warrant there is. Nothing whatsoever in nature is. If Jesus was God incarnate, then otherwise impossible, unnecessary God humbly instantiates - thinks - the prevenient laws of physics, grounds eternal, infinite being. Existence autonomously does the rest without any further intervention. There is no problem at all apart from taking the leap of faith that against all the evidence of absurd meaninglessness, Jesus was God. Thermodynamics and evolution are a non-problem, a red herring that you are incapable of landing. Let’s posit that you’re right. What has that got to do with anything else? What has your brand of divine intervention between grounding being and incarnation got to do with morality? How you live your life? With salvation? Who’s in, who’s out of transcendence?
My apologies, I never intended to accuse you of hand waving in this discussion. I said that most YEC and ID proponents who come to this forum ‘seeking evidence’ end up:
- Hand waving it away
- Moving the goal posts
- Dismissing the expertise of those who provide said evidence.
You then replied ‘I would ask, “who is doing the handwaving”. In essence, brushing aside the objection by not engaging with it. That is I believe, by definition, handwaving.
You’ve now shifted the focus on to me (“what have you contributed?”) and my skills (“what are your expertise?”). I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that these are not an intentional ad hominems. But you have yet to address my principle point.
The fact remains, many of us are suspicious when YEC folk and ID people say they are ‘just look for more evidence’. Experience here on BL has shown us that more evidence is rarely what they want. Again, i hope you are the exception.
I’ll leave it there as I don’t want to detract from the central flow of conversation. I wish you (genuinely) all the best in your search for evidence. I hope you find it.
7 Likes
I guess you didn’t see my question above so I’ll repeat it here:
How does an Intelligent Design advocate/creationist explain the pseudopenis of the spotted FEMALE hyena? She gets impregnated through it and has to give birth through it. Does the designer have a sick sense of humor?
Hi LM77, no apologies needed. I was engaging in a little fun conversation with you and no way was I putting you down. Honestly, I was wondering if you had some training and maybe you weren’t engaging because you have other interests. I will do that if the topic is not interesting or outside my area. I see you don’t think much of creationists, and I was challenging that notion. I don’t think I need to change my opinion on a topic just because some experts say I should. I will change my opinion if they have rational and reasonable points that are better than mine.
I came here to see what the discussion was like and if the arguments were persuasive. So far I haven’t been that impressed but we will see.
You have entirely overlooked my previous contribution to the thread, but it directly refutes your conjecture:
The total entropy of the sun + the earth is always increasing, in keeping with the 2d Law of Thermodynamics. This does not prevent biological systems from working uphill against the entropy gradient by directly and indirectly harnessing energy inputs from the sun.
These are all simultaneously true:
- Total entropy increases;
- evolution happens;
- God’s sovereign grace and providence prevail.
None of these statements contradict the other two.
Best,
Chris
5 Likes
This continues to be wrong every time you repeat it. If you think it’s right, please present your calculation of the net change in entropy over the course of the evolution of anything.
5 Likes
His Nobel awaits. Soooooo. What’s the identity issue here? How do we make SixDays feel good about himself regardless for reasons that are universally valid?
2 Likes
Great point. Where do I start? I have so much to learn–the majority of us Christians here argued opposite where we are now on the 2nd law, as well (I remember doing so, myself, in high school). Knowledge can puff up, as Paul says, and we are all in the same boat of learning. And it’s certain that he can teach me something in every single interaction we have.
2 Likes
Hi Chris, I did kind of jump past your post with the many other ones there. You identify one of the biological thermodynamic mechanisms that allow life to exist. But there is much more mechanisms required for life if we look at all the nanomachines supporting it. These are fine tuned machines where each cell is like an elaborate engine continuously running with nano robots running nutrients in and the waste out. How all these machines coordinate their work is a mystery but from an engineering perspective it screams out ID. Life is a megafactory where it duplicates the DNA as fast as a jet engine where all the code for the processes of life are written in the genome.
Life has all the information in the genome to build bottom up, but the problem for evolution is the missing information to build the new systems and integrate them into the old system. This is the missing thermodynamic mechanism. It is kind of like saying you want to cool food without the refrigerator. Or you are going to drive up the mountain without the engine in your car. Or you are going to fly to the moon without a rocket engine. It is all wishful thinking like evolution is.
Now let us look a little closer at these thermodynamic mechanisms. They have to constrain boundary conditions, where for example the refrigerator has to control the pressure in the compressor, the flow of the working fluid in the lines, the temperature throughout the system, and many other parameters. All thermodynamic mechanisms (TMs) have to utilize an energy source to enable the precise processes. They have to have a specific purpose where for example you cannot have a TM that does everything like the advocates of evolution claim. A car engine has to be designed so that it works 100% of the time, or at least very close to this value, which most of our human designed systems have to follow. The evolutionary mechanism is different where all it needs to do is work in a probabilistic fashion fast enough allowing the evolutionary advancement to proceed within the allotted time. But this is the problem with evolution, because the probability of integrating new systems on old are not trivial. The new system won’t work until it is integrated and working, which means you need many specific mutations before added function is realized and selection helps the process along. Again, looking at a ballpark probability and one side of the genome (3e-9)^30 =2.0e-284. Of course, I don’t look at the population here or the 4 types of base pairs but even then you would need an overwhelming population to allow this to happen and you still have the problem of coalescing into a single genome. Now this is just for 30 mutations to get added function where most added function would require many more. To get the many lifeforms we see throughout history, there are trillions times trillions of these small jumps to get all the life we see. You just don’t have enough time to realize this with even 3.4 billion years. Now many will object and say we see this all the time in the lab but I would say you are observing the robust design built into life. It is the programming you are seeing and it has an edge - the edge of evolution.
This is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Are you familiar with the TSS?
We can discuss details further, if you like, but I thought it would be good to enter the elevator on the ground floor and work our way up, metaphorically speaking.
Also, I might add that I work with genetic algorithms, random walk algorithms, and varying search algorithms professionally. Your work with aircraft propulsion (if I have understood your background correctly), is quite fascinating and useful to all of us in some fashion, whether directly or indirectly. However, I regret to say, your background is not so useful to understanding biological evolution. The genetic processes of evolution are much more like random walks and annealing searches than like designing aircraft systems and subsystems.
I hope you are not offended by my statement, I intend no disrespect. Your work is important and useful in many, many ways. However, it is not necessarily the grid through which every question in biology should be viewed. Does that make sense?
Best,
Chris
5 Likes
I am saying there are no random walk scenarios. You don’t understand systems and integration of systems into other systems. That is the fallacy you are making.
I have done plenty of systems, systems of systems, and system integration in my enterprise architecture work for private industry and for one of the largest federal agencies.
In that work, integrations must be 100% precise. I am sure that, with aircraft systems, an extremely low tolerance is permitted. But is that a requirement between biological systems? Must protein folds match perfectly?
Ask 100 biologists, and 100 will say no. I invite any biologists who are following this thread to correct me if I have misunderstood anything.
Moreover, enterprise system integrations are always conducted under time deadlines. Is the evolution of biological systems similarly constrained? Does a mammalian foot have to evolve into a cetacean fin by next quarter?
Given the vastly different precisions and timeframes of human systems integrations, on the one hand, and biological evolution, on the other, it is completely plausible that the methods of generating new systems and integrations would be different. And yes, annealing search and random walks are pretty good models of biological evolution at the genetic level.
But that is just theoretical. There is also abundant empirical evidence of nested hierarchy in biology, both with respect to systems and integrations. Those nested hierarchies are extremely strong evidence of evolution. Have you studied biology at the graduate level, @SixDays, such that you have a professional-level understanding of this evidence?
I would also point out that you have not addressed the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy that, as I pointed out, you have committed more than once in this thread. Your credibility would be enhanced if you were to address this issue rather than ignore it, but it’s your choice as to whether you want to do so.
Best,
Chris Falter
5 Likes
My older son, now a Swiss citizen, is an EA for Blue Window, Swisscom’s internet service, so you two could converse easily. 
I can’t find it in a hurry – in may be in Skype several years back, but he and some friends had black T-shirts with white screening made with a graphic that said “mEAn in Black” as a fun takeoff on the movie.
[Oops, I meant to send that as a PM, he says three hours later. ]
1 Like
Sure I replied, but obviously not! We have to do it here in plain sight and not be patronizing, which feels impossible. Many of us have been there and worse, and there are clinical considerations. So, again @SixDays, what happened to you?
[And Randy, all he can teach us, is how to include him. He actually knows nothing that we can know, we have utterly different epistemologies. How did we get them? We need to walk in those shoes.]
1 Like
Thanks for your note. I do think we need to walk in our own shoes, once again, with humility–but we can learn something from everyone, don’t you think? it doesn’t have to be on that topic. Thanks.
1 Like