Math prof attacks the "open" explanation for 2TD

[koban]

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]

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]

>>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]

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]

>>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]

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]

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]

Yorzhik, can you give an example of something in a cell that irreducibly complex?

 

[koban]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks noguru,

Bob Hill

 

[noguru]

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]

Thanks noguru,

Bob Hill

No problem, Bob. Glad to be of service.

 

[bob b]

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]

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]

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.