Are there any serious conflicts between Evolution and Physics?

[Late_Cretaceous]

Amino acids occur in outer space, on comets and asteroids. A mixture of organic compounds like methane and ethane along with nitrogen can be used to generate amino acids when exposed to UV light.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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)

Living matter has to obey physics as well. Organisms obey Newton's Laws of Motion and his Law of Heating. They rely on chemical potential energy to power their motions. They radiate black body radiation identical to a non-living object of the same temperature and shape.

 

[pmh1nic]

fragmentsofdreams

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

I don't think that's correct. It's my understanding that that single cell you mentioned has all the complexity (programming) of the human being build right into it.

Bear

"Well it's about time. Why couldn't you have made this your first post in this thread?"

Because you started the tread and asked the question so my feeling is you should have the liberty to define what you mean by evolution. No games, promise.

And the need for a clear definition is highlighted by the statement by Vance. He doesn't view inorganic to organ as evolution. In my opinion that's a cope out on the part of evolutionist. They don't want to have to deal with the exceedingly difficult question of how inorganic material becomes "alive." Let's start with living things (the simpliest being very complex) and propose that micro-evolutionary changes (adaptation and mutations) which are evident even today somehow produce macro-evolutionary which are not apparent.

Do you agree with Vance that inorganic to organic is not covered under the word evolution?

"creationists accept microevolution, but reject macroevolution - even though they are pretty much the same"

Clarification:
"Microevolution - comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level" "Macroevolution - evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
(Merriam-Webster)

Microevolution is horizontal. Macroevolution is the "claim" that vertical evolution takes place. As far as I know the claims of examples given as representative of macroevolution and not widely accepted even by evolutionist.

Give me some specific examples of macroevolution.

 

[TheBear]

Microevolution refers to small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Biologists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, which refers to large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species).

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

 

[TheBear]

You still have not demonstrated any conflicts.

 

[TheBear]

Macroevolution refers to large-scale changes in the characteristics of life -- in effect, the evolution of species and higher taxa. It is distinct from microevolution, which describes changes that occur within a single population.

*** According to Charles Darwin and also the modern synthesis, this distinction is relative and purely a matter of scale. *** The theory further maintains that species are a statistical rather than ontological phenomena. Neo-Darwinian theory maintains that all changes in gene-frequencies, regardless of scale, are explained by the same observable, natural forces. In the creationist hypothesis of intelligent design this distinction is absolute and central. Intelligent design advocates argue that microevolution may be explained by constant, observable, natural forces, but that macroevolution must be explained by other forces.

(emphasis mine)

 

[TheBear]

You still have not demonstrated any conflicts.

 

[pmh1nic]

Bear

Do you include the jump from inorganic to organic in your definition of evolution?

Probably not since this would be an increase in complexity that violates the association of levels of complexity (a common association) with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also something that has been show to be exceedingly difficult do accomplish in attempts to create even the simplist amino acids.

And I guess from your statement "you still have not demonstrated any conflicts" that you don't consider levels of complexity a valid association with the 2nd law of thermodynamics since the increase in complexed expressed in macroevolution (which you didn't given any specific examples of) would violate that law.

Where are the examples of increased complexity (decreasing entropy)?

 

[notto]

Bear

Do you include the jump from inorganic to organic in your definition of evolution?

Probably not since this would be an increase in complexity that violates the association of levels of complexity (a common association) with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is also something that has been show to be exceedingly difficult do accomplish in attempts to create even the simplist amino acids.

And I guess from your statement "you still have not demonstrated any conflicts" that you don't consider levels of complexity a valid association with the 2nd law of thermodynamics since the increase in complexed expressed in macroevolution (which you didn't given any specific examples of) would violate that law.

Where are the examples of increased complexity (decreasing entropy)?

Perhaps this would be a good time for you to state the 2nd law as you are using it here. You seem to have been avoiding it. Laws of physics apply to physical mechanisms and processes, not definitions of 'complexity' and its expression.

Please state the second law related to 'complexity' that evolution violates.

Abiogeneis (start of life or self replicators) is a different theory all together. Evolutionary theory does not propose a mechanism for the start of life. It only proposes a mechanism to explain the diversity of life. It uses mechanisms that have been observed and that do not violate any physical laws to do it.

 

[TheBear]

pmh1nic,


This behavior is really a disgrace to honest Christians, and a poor example set for the non-Christians who are reading this dishonest and disingenuous manner in which you are conducting yourself here.


What conflicts between evolution and physics are you talking about?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

pmh1nic

Cyanide (a nitrogen source) + methane + UV light = amino acids

This happens in outer space
THis happens on comets
This happens in the atmosphere of Saturn's moon Titan

In exactly 53 weeks the probe Huygens will plunge into the atmosphere of Titan to learn more about this mysterious world.

"Titan's surface temperature appears to be about -178°C (-289°F). Methane appears to be below its saturation pressure near Titan's surface; rivers and lakes of methane probably don't exist, in spite of the tantalizing analogy to water on Earth. On the other hand, scientists believe lakes of ethane exist that contain dissolved methane. Titan's methane, through continuing photochemistry, is converted to ethane, acetylene, ethylene, and (when combined with nitrogen) hydrogen cyanide. The last is an especially important molecule; it is a building block of amino acids.
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/titan.htm"

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Here is an even better source about amino acid generation in Titan's atmosphere:

http://www.es.ucl.ac.uk/research/planetaryweb/undergraduate/dom/weathering_titan/chap2.htm

 

[pmh1nic]

Bear

I really don't understand your outrage. You asked a question, I asked for clarification. Rather than give that clarification you bash. I then try to clarify, give you my understanding of the word evolution and what I believe are obstacles (increasing complexity) to it based on an aspect of the 2nd law that is well known (as a cursory web search would reveal) and you then bash because you don't like the definition I gave.

One more point, it is very "convenient" for evolutionist to want to dissociate one of the most difficult aspects of life being generated totally by physical/biological processes from inorganic matter to start with a functional complexity (which on close examination is in itself very complex) that adapts and mutates giving hope that the dramatic change from microbe to man is possible. You keep asking for obstacles but don't want to address one of the major obstacles but rather conveniently say that's a separate issue and not part of the evolutionary discussion. When is the start of something not part of the discussion of the issue as a whole.

When you can demonstrate in the laboratory on a repeated basis that life can be generated from inorganic matter by creating examples of it and provide concrete proof that new, substantially different species (not different colors of moth or flies with four legs) are being generated through adaptation and/or mutation I will be a very attentive audience.

Late_Cretaceous

Let's be clear, no amino acids were found on Titan. Scientist were able to create amino acids by subjecting what they believe is similar to the atmosphere on Titan to acid hydrolysis.

BTW, here is a list of some of the quack scientist that are skeptical and/or have serious doubt based in their understanding of the science that evolution (inorganic to organic and macroevolution) is the answer to the origins of life. Some of these quacks have some pretty impressive creditials. But of course they've all been blinded by religious bias and superstition.

http://www.objectivityinscience.org/dissent.html

 

[notto]

Bear
BTW, here is a list of some of the quack scientist that are skeptical and/or have serious doubt based in their understanding of the science that evolution (inorganic to organic and macroevolution) is the answer to the origins of life. Some of these quacks have some pretty impressive creditials. But of course they've all been blinded by religious bias and superstition.

http://www.objectivityinscience.org/dissent.html

How many of them are named Steve?

Project Steve

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

100 Scientists Named Steve Agree

Of course, all of these Steves are products of the evolutionary conspiracy designed by evil atheist scientists to deny God.

 

[pmh1nic]

notto

My point is that as a layperson dealing in a area where I don't have a lot of technical expertise (my backround is in digital electronics) and I see disagreement among scholars (in some cases sharp disagreement) I'm not going to totally discount the arguments on either side. I spend all of my academic life in a scientific environment that taught evolution as fact. Nothing was ever said about the challenges to the theory.

There are some highly educated individuals, some of whom have spent a good part of their lifetime studying this subject, and they have serious doubts. I don't discount what they say out of hand because some or all of them have religious beliefs.

I've also been around long enough to know that things claimed as scientific fact one day are should to be erroneous claims the next, especially when dealing with "cutting edge" subjects like the potential for amino acids to be acculating on Titan are concerned.

 

[notto]

And my point is that there have been no published, researched, peer reviewed, and unfalsified challenges to evolution presented by those (few) individuals who call it into question. This should tell you something. It should tell you even more that most of those (few) individuals have religious beliefs that directly contrast with the theory of evolution and this can often be evidenced by their own comments and writings.

Nobody is saying that evolution could not be overturned but ID has a long way to go if they want to do that and it needs to be done through research, publication of results, and coming up with an alternative theory that is testable, verifyable, and supported by data.

Publications of books and signing of statements relating their opinions will not do this. There are no credible challenges to the theory of evolution. There are those who are determined to poke holes in it by using biased research methods (only showing what they want you to see and not adequately researching existing studies), mistatements and emotional appeal (something from nothing and we did not come from chance or a mistake), and just plain bad science (evolution violates the laws of physics).

This should make you question them as sources, not the theory of evolution.

 

[pmh1nic]

"And my point is that there have been no published, researched, peer reviewed, and unfalsified challenges to evolution presented by those (few) individuals who call it into question."

I'm admittedly a layperson. You throw out a blanket statement like that as if you're an authority. What exactly are your credentials? Are you privey to everything that's currently being researched and written regarding this subject? Do you have credentials approaching those of those few individuals you're so quick to discount?

 

[TheBear]

I think I got it now.

pmh1nic assumes and believes that there just has to be conflicts between evolution and physics, since the concept of evolution already goes against his interpretation of scripture. And, since he is an admitted layperson, he is unable to give specific examples of of his claims. But he knows there just has to be these conflicts somewhere, somehow.

Is that the gist of it, pmh1nic?

 

[notto]

"And my point is that there have been no published, researched, peer reviewed, and unfalsified challenges to evolution presented by those (few) individuals who call it into question."

I'm admittedly a layperson. You throw out a blanket statement like that as if you're an authority. What exactly are your credentials? Are you privey to everything that's currently being researched and written regarding this subject? Do you have credentials approaching those of those few individuals you're so quick to discount?

Name an article. Name a journal. Name a scientist that has published research on ID through scientific channels. There are none.

Anybody can write a book for the popular media and the laymen and unfortunately, the laymen will take it as credible. There are books on UFO's, bigfoot, perpetual motion, ghosts, ancient astronauts, and unfortunately, a young earth and unsupported notions of 'ID' in our bodies. All of these have been written by 'credentialed' individual. Credentials are meaningless without evidence, data, and sound logic and conclusions.

My credentials have little to do with anything. I accept scientific research that has been shown to be peer reviewed and verified. I reject unscientific writtings by biased authors written to try to persuade laypeople of the nature of scientific study and the validity of evolution. Why wouldn't I? I have seen no evidence of any alterior motive to science by the overwhelming majority of scientists who research, publish, and verify with evidence, their findings related to evolution. Why would you approach science any other way unless to just find the answers you want through authors who only have the motive to tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Stop terrorising him Bear.

I'm laughing too hard, here.