Are there any serious conflicts between Evolution and Physics?

[TheBear]

If so, what are they? Let's take a close look at these conflicts.

 

[pmh1nic]

Define what you mean by evolution.

 

[TheBear]

Define what you mean by evolution.

The same definition you are refering to when you said the following in another thread.

Seriously, I'm not a scientist but I've read enough on both sides of the debate to realize that evolution is a theory with some very real difficulties and conflicts with laws of physics and scientific observation.

 

[Vance]

Well, I think it should explicitly exclude abiogenesis, for one thing, which is not evolutionary theory.

Here is one definition, from Talk Origins:

"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
. . .
The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution."

So, evolution can be described as

1. a change in the gene pool of a population over time

2. which has resulted in common descent from earlier ancestors

3. which occurs via a number of mechanisms, one of which is natural selection

What evolution does NOT say:

God does not exist

evolutionary processes are "progress"

life came from nothing (origin of life is not within the scope of evolution)

change happens by random chance

 

[TheBear]

I am a little disappointed.

pmh1nic knows exactly what the OP is refering to, yet decided to post a distraction question.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The only conflict between physics and evolution exists on the volleyball courts of intramural play in various universities.

 

[pmh1nic]

"pmh1nic knows exactly what the OP is refering to, yet decided to post a distraction question."

Bear

Don't be disappointed. Since we had some question regarding what is evolution in the other thread I was leaving it to you (since you asked the question) to define what you mean by evolution so we can at least know we're talking about the same thing in this thread.

What do you mean by evolution?

 

[TheBear]

"pmh1nic knows exactly what the OP is refering to, yet decided to post a distraction question."

Bear

Don't be disappointed. Since we had some question regarding what is evolution in the other thread I was leaving it to you (since you asked the question) to define what you mean by evolution so we can at least know we're talking about the same thing in this thread.

What do you mean by evolution?

I refuse to play this little game of yours, pmh1nic. In another thread, you stated that there are serious conflicts between evolution and physics. You tell us. What evolution where you refering to, when you made that statement, and what are the conflicts between the evolution you are talking about, and physics?

No more games. Any further replies of yours in this thread, which do not address the specific question here, will tell us all that you are disingenuous and dishonest - that you make claims which you cannot backup.

What's it going to be, pmh1nic? More tap dancing, or are you going to answer the question?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Well, although a mere observer in this instance, I do believe the evolution Bear is pointing to is the term for the topic discussed in this forum. This, I am sure, you are aware of (based on your previous contributions to the forums):

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1287692#post1287692
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1289074#post1289074
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1286726#post1286726

For example, these demonstrate the point being made by Bear. If you want me to be more specific:

A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

This is the definition of Evolution that we are using in this example. Bear wants to know if there are any arguments between physics and the evolutionary process described.

However, I (and I think I speak for others as well), feel you should list your arguments in full detail. Failure to do so will result in a discrediting of your actual knowledge.

If you have no counter arguments, or are unwilling to state your information, please say so now.


Now, we have established the following basis (which I think might help), in order to continue:

1. Evolution is a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
   
2. You will list all of your arguments in full detail, citing all sources or other points of information.
   

Good, that should save us some time of random accusations.

 

[TheBear]

I don't want to see this thread get sidetracted with the semantics games pmh1nic is trying to do. He knows exactly what I'm talking about.


Soooooooooo........

What are the serious conflicts between evolution and physics, which pmh1nic alluded to in another thread?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

None to my knowledge. We would have to look back at the far similar formations of life forms in order for this to come into conflict, but even then...

 

[pmh1nic]

"I refuse to play this little game of yours, pmh1nic"

Bear, I'm 50 years old and the only time I have for games is with my nine grandchildren.

There was some "issue" in the other thread regarding how evolution is to be defined. My understanding is that the study of evolution begins with inorganic matter becoming simple organisms and those organisms adapting, changing, mutating, developing in to more complex organisms with the end result being man. Others said evolution really doesn't deal with the jump from inorganic to organic.

If by evolution you mean the process of inorganic material somehow structuring itself into simple (although as I said earlier there are no simple living organisms) my understanding is there are many problems and unknowns. One being the difficulty of creating the amino acids that are the building blocks of life.

If we're talking about micro-evolution, adaptive changes within a species, I don't think there are any major problems.

If we're talking macro-evolutionary, evolution of new species, it's my understand that there are many unanswered, difficult questions. Where are the modern day examples of this? What mechanism causes these burst of new species? What accounts for the change in the genetic code that brings about the burst?

If we start with the first definition it's my understanding that the physical properties of matter do not lend themselves to easily combining into even simple amino acids. And additional hurdle is the further combination into complex amino acids. It's also my understanding that radiation tends to break down amino acids.

I'll skip the second since there really doesn't seem to be much conflict there.

If your definition of evolution includes one ancestral origin for dogs, cats, mice and men the question is what process of adaptation brought about these changes. This goes beyond the dominace of a dark moths because the lighter moths were easy targets for prey. These are changes in function and complexity that I don't believe adaptation can explain.

We also had a discussion of the increasing levels of complexity and there connection with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Some would are that in a technical sense there is no connection but there has been tremendous discussion, debate and application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the study of complexity. Some of those arguments are that the leap in complexity that would seem to be require in macro-evolution goes against the 2nd law as far as its application to issues of complexity are concerned.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Speaking as a physics major minoring in biology, there are no conflicts between physics and evolution.

The second law of thermodynamics allows for increased complexity. Otherwise, a single cell could never develop into a human being.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Interesting that the burst in the fossil record comes around the time that animals with fossilizable skeletons started showing up. Wonder why that is?

 

[Talcos Stormweaver]

Well, there seem to be no arguments so far.

 

[TheBear]

"I refuse to play this little game of yours, pmh1nic"

Bear, I'm 50 years old and the only time I have for games is with my nine grandchildren.

There was some "issue" in the other thread regarding how evolution is to be defined. My understanding is that the study of evolution begins with inorganic matter becoming simple organisms and those organisms adapting, changing, mutating, developing in to more complex organisms with the end result being man. Others said evolution really doesn't deal with the jump from inorganic to organic.

If by evolution you mean the process of inorganic material somehow structuring itself into simple (although as I said earlier there are no simple living organisms) my understanding is there are many problems and unknowns. One being the difficulty of creating the amino acids that are the building blocks of life.

If we're talking about micro-evolution, adaptive changes within a species, I don't think there are any major problems.

If we're talking macro-evolutionary, evolution of new species, it's my understand that there are many unanswered, difficult questions. Where are the modern day examples of this? What mechanism causes these burst of new species? What accounts for the change in the genetic code that brings about the burst?

If we start with the first definition it's my understanding that the physical properties of matter do not lend themselves to easily combining into even simple amino acids. And additional hurdle is the further combination into complex amino acids. It's also my understanding that radiation tends to break down amino acids.

I'll skip the second since there really doesn't seem to be much conflict there.

If your definition of evolution includes one ancestral origin for dogs, cats, mice and men the question is what process of adaptation brought about these changes. This goes beyond the dominace of a dark moths because the lighter moths were easy targets for prey. These are changes in function and complexity that I don't believe adaptation can explain.

We also had a discussion of the increasing levels of complexity and there connection with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Some would are that in a technical sense there is no connection but there has been tremendous discussion, debate and application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the study of complexity. Some of those arguments are that the leap in complexity that would seem to be require in macro-evolution goes against the 2nd law as far as its application to issues of complexity are concerned.

Well it's about time.

Why couldn't you have made this your first post in this thread? Anyway......

You still have not demonstrated any real conflicts between evolution and physics. You have brought up a few questions about mechanisms, and a seemingly vague understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but no real or defined conflicts.

Also, I have always found it interesting that some young earth creationists accept microevolution, but reject macroevolution - even though they are pretty much the same, using the same mechanisms. Basically, the only difference between the two is time and scale.

BTW, it's good to talk to someone around my age here.

 

[notto]

We also had a discussion of the increasing levels of complexity and there connection with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Some would are that in a technical sense there is no connection but there has been tremendous discussion, debate and application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the study of complexity. Some of those arguments are that the leap in complexity that would seem to be require in macro-evolution goes against the 2nd law as far as its application to issues of complexity are concerned.

The mechanisms used in evolutionary theory for 'macro' and 'micro' evolution are EXACTLY the same so therefore, if micro evolution does not violate any laws of physics, macro would not either. Do you accept that 'micro' evolution happens?

 

[Icystwolf]

PEOPLE, Listen up!


If you want something to argue and play around with, there is one which has been puzzling me for sometime. I have an answer to it, but I'm not going to reveal it, so as to not disturb the thinking process then compare it with my answer to see whether my thought processes are correct.

The BLACK HOLE , does this not violate any theory, and in what relation does this have with God and his word?


(I'm not quite understanding whether you can find conflicts with evolution and physics, because they were seperated based on concepts where evolution is the change of living matter, whilst physics is the change of nonliving matter)

 

[TheBear]

Excuse me!? I am the thread author of this thread. If you want to start another thread on black holes or whatever, you are free to do so. But, don't think you are just going to storm into others' thread topics, and hijack them. That is rude and inconsiderate.

 

[Vance]

Pmh1nic:

Your first definition is not evolution, it is abiogenesis. They are two separate phenomenon. You can accept one and not the other.

You accept the mechanics of microevolutionary development (genetic mutation, natural selection, etc, etc), so no problem there.

Your third definition, regarding macro-evolution is simply micro evolution (which you accept) after a LONG time. Enough micro's will make a macro. Yes, there are always issues and details over any theory or aspect of a theory, but that is almost always debates among those *who accept that macro happens* over whether this particular phenomenon is more common in the process or that one, or whether X must take place before Y, etc. In having these debates, they will often disparage their colleagues' opposing concepts over these details (and, being scientists, often in scathing terms) which can be taken out of context to seem like a disbelief that macro can even occur. This is called "quote mining" and happens ALL THE TIME with YEC's, especially in their papers. What they fail to do when quoting these scientists is to point out that they DO believe in macro evolution!

But really, there is no burst in the sense we think about it. Scientists talk in geologic times, where a burst may mean millions of years instead of hundreds of millions or billions. They mean burst compared to relative stasis when selective pressures are low. All those who study the Cambrian "Explosion" do not doubt macroevolution at all, nor do they believe that macro changes only occur during such "prime" periods.

And, really, regarding the second law, when even the leading Creation Science group has given in on this one and acknowledged that it simply doesn't make a good argument against macro evolution, you need to seriously reconsider that one.

The problem with Creation Science is that they are going out and looking for arguments to support a position they hold for religious reasons, rather than just taking the evidence objectively and coming up with the most likely explanation. This is why they have come up with concept after concept that they have to eventually abandon when it doesn't hold up.

Many Creationists presenters, however, fail to abandon these points even when they are positively refuted, since they have written books and seminar materials containing them. AIG even took Hovind to task for these dishonest tactics.