Are there any serious conflicts between Evolution and Physics?

[pmh1nic]

Notto

You're the one making the blanket statements what "all" research has or hasn't proved about ID. You're the one trashing the claims of scientist with Ph.D credentials in numerous disciplines as if you've got some special expertise in a related field. Come on Notto, don't dodge the question. What are you're credentials that lend credence to your bold claims of expertise?

Bear

"pmh1nic assumes and believes that there just has to be conflicts between evolution and physics"

Wrong, I have questions and perceive that conflicts exist based on what I've read from scientist that have an expertise in the field and have expressed doubts based on their research that evolution is the answer to the origins of life and the existence of man.

"And, since he is an admitted layperson, he is unable to give specific examples of of his claims."

Wrong again. I've given you examples that you have failed to respond to or refute. You even failed to provide a definition of evolution. BTW, what are your credentials?

 

[notto]

Notto

You're the one making the blanket statements what "all" research has or hasn't proved about ID. You're the one trashing the claims of scientist with Ph.D credentials in numerous disciplines as if you've got some special expertise in a related field. Come on Notto, don't dodge the question. What are you're credentials that lend credence to your bold claims of expertise?

I'm not claiming expertise. I am relying on the expertise of the 99.9% of scientists who accept evolution and have not found any reason to question it's validity. Again, my credentials have nothing to do with my claims. How about this. I will state that I have not seen any scientific evidence presented in the form of a published, peer reviewed, study that calls into question the ability of evolution to explain the diversity of life we see. Until some can be presented, I will continue to accept it. Can you present any research that would cause me to doubt this? Anything?

You are the one trashing the claims of 99.9% of scientists who have expertise in the related field. Do you have anything to offer that would back up these claims other than unreviewed books written for the laymen by people who admittedly have a bias to want to show evidence for ID but have failed to do so through scientific research, publications, and peer reviewed findings?

 

[notto]

Wrong, I have questions and perceive that conflicts exist based on what I've read from scientist that have an expertise in the field and have expressed doubts based on their research that evolution is the answer to the origins of life and the existence of man

What research? Please be specific.

 

[notto]

Evolution:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

 

[pmh1nic]

Notto

"I'm not claiming expertise. I am relying on the expertise of the 99.9% of scientists who accept evolution and have not found any reason to question it's validity"

Actually you don't know what if anything they have "not found" as far as reasons to question it's validity. Just because you espouse a particular theory doesn't mean you don't have ANY doubts about it's validity.

Again, your 99.9% figure is based on one survey, incomplete and probably not thoroughly scientific based on what I've read about how the information was compiled. In addition the scientist that have presented issues that cause them to have serious doubts about the theory of evolution are also experts in their field. The major HAS been wrong in the past.

"You are the one trashing the claims of 99.9% of scientists who have expertise in the related field."

Correction, I haven't trashed anyone. I've questioned the validity that the current evidence, based on the questions raised by other experts in associated fields, provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is the answer to the origins of life. I haven't called them quacks or ridiculous or claiming they're basing their conclusions on some atheistic bias.

"What research? Please be specific"
How about reading Behe book instead of getting it second hand.

The definition question wasn't for you but the last part of your definition (resulting in the development of new species) is strongly argued against by some experts and I don't believe all of them are proponents of ID.

Bear

Here is a link to a research report on the relationship between complexity and thermodynamics. This is from a group of scientist that endorse the theory of evolution (at least that's what I've derived from the report). These scientist believe there may be a connection and that the limitations in demonstrating this connection (between complexity and thermodynamics) with absolute certainty are limitations in being able to quantify elements of complexity. The report touches on evolution and what appears to a total increase in complexity may not actually be (that's the best I could get out of it giving my limited expertise).

Of course Notto you knew about this research but just wasn't going to telling us .

 

[notto]

Behe has NOT done any published research that supports his conclusions. He cobbled together others reasearch in a way that supports his conclusions.

Again, there has not been any published, peer reviewed, data related to the validity of evolution that falsifies it.

The small number of scientists who wish to discredit evolution do so based on opinion, not based on any evidence that they are able to present. They are similar to you in this respect. They do not accept evolution so there MUST be evidence that falsifies it out there, they just have not been able to present this information.

Again, Behe's book is not scientific research or a published study that has been reviewed by other scientists. They are simply his ideas (many of which have been shown to be incorrect or directly falified by existing research).

 

[notto]

Here is a link to a research report on the relationship between complexity and thermodynamics. This is from a group of scientist that endorse the theory of evolution (at least that's what I've derived from the report). These scientist believe there may be a connection and that the limitations in demonstrating this connection (between complexity and thermodynamics) with absolute certainty are limitations in being able to quantify elements of complexity. The report touches on evolution and what appears to a total increase in complexity may not actually be (that's the best I could get out of it giving my limited expertise).

Can't see the link, but from your description, it would seem that they are saying that evolutionary theory does not rely on any mechanisms that violate any physical laws. What a shock.

 

[pmh1nic]

Notto

"Behe has NOT done any published research that supports his conclusions. He cobbled together others reasearch in a way that supports his conclusions."

How do you know? You didn't read the book to see what research he may have done or referred to in the book.

"Again, there has not been any published, peer reviewed, data related to the validity of evolution that falsifies it."

How do you know? Another blanket statement by someone who will criticize a book he's never read.

And no one said anything about "falsifies" evolution. What has been said is that there are serious issues with the theory that have caused some scientist to doubt that evolution (organic from inorganic and macroevolution) is the answer for the origins of life and mankind.

"Can't see the link, but from your description, it would seem that they are saying that evolutionary theory does not rely on any mechanisms that violate any physical laws. What a shock."

The purpose of the link was to counter the assertions that the 2nd law has no relationship to complexity. The scientist that wrote the paper aren't sure if evolution violates the second law. The also understand the current limitations at devicing mathematic formulas to accurate make that assessment.

Your are awfully quick to make judgments based on summaries (even my summaries . You should try to reserve your judgment until you've read the material (like Behe's book) in question.

Here is the link if you care to read the report:
http://www.patronov.net/personal/papers/cmpl.pdf

If your attitude is a reflection of the so called unbiased approach of the so-called 99.9% it causes me to have further doubts about the objectivity of their research.

 

[notto]

Notto

"Behe has NOT done any published research that supports his conclusions. He cobbled together others reasearch in a way that supports his conclusions."

How do you know? You didn't read the book to see what research he may have done or referred to in the book.

None of Behe's work has been presented in scientific journals as a model for ID. Behe would agree with you on this if you asked him.

"Again, there has not been any published, peer reviewed, data related to the validity of evolution that falsifies it."

How do you know? Another blanket statement by someone who will criticize a book he's never read.

I'm not criticising Behe's book. I'm criticising his lack of actual published scientific research in the area that would add credibility to the opinions he might espouse in his book. Again, I will repeat. His book is not scientific literature.

And no one said anything about "falsifies" evolution. What has been said is that there are serious issues with the theory that have caused some scientist to doubt that evolution (organic from inorganic and macroevolution) is the answer for the origins of life and mankind.

Macro evolution and speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. Abiogenesis is a different line of research and has its own hypothesis. Evolution by definition only deals with changes in populations and speciation over time.

"Can't see the link, but from your description, it would seem that they are saying that evolutionary theory does not rely on any mechanisms that violate any physical laws. What a shock."

The purpose of the link was to counter the assertions that the 2nd law has no relationship to complexity. The scientist that wrote the paper aren't sure if evolution violates the second law. The also understand the current limitations at devicing mathematic formulas to accurate make that assessment.

Your are awfully quick to make judgments based on summaries (even my summaries . You should try to reserve your judgment until you've read the material (like Behe's book) in question.

Here is the link if you care to read the report:
http://www.patronov.net/personal/papers/cmpl.pdf

If your attitude is a reflection of the so called unbiased approach of the so-called 99.9% it causes me to have further doubts about the objectivity of their research.

Well, when Behe or anybody else actually publishes their ID theories that are testable and falsifiable in scientific journals or through peer review, I'm sure the other 99.9% of the scientific community will warm up to it. After all, those 99.9% have to do that to get their research to be seen as credible. Why should ID proponents be any different? Science is VERY objective. That is what peer review and publishing provide. Behe avoids this by publishing through the public press and for laypeople such as your self. The best way to survive scrutiny is to avoid it and that would seem to be his plan of action related to ID. But make no mistake, this is not how good science is done.

The paper you have given is a great example of the type of work that ID proponents should be producing and publishing. Instead of giving vague definitions of 'complexity' and claiming that the mechanisms of evolution somehow violate physical laws, these researchers defined complexity, provided a model to measure it, and showed in their conclusions that evolution can lead to complexity without violating any physical laws. They even used math to do it. This paper refutes the notion that evolution violates any physical laws. Thanks for linking to it.

 

[pmh1nic]

Notto

"None of Behe's work has been presented in scientific journals as a model for ID. Behe would agree with you on this if you asked him."
Instead of answering the question "how do you know" you go on to make another unsubstantiated statement.

BTW, here is a link to Behe's website and the responses he has received regarding publishing anything that even raises questions regarding the Darwinian theory of origins. It is also a response to your questions regarding the lack of published papers of ID or any other theory of origins that is a challenge to Darwinism:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm

"Evolution by definition only deals with changes in populations and speciation over time."
Oh, how convenient.

"The paper you have given is a great example of the type of work that ID proponents should be producing and publishing."

So is there a connection between the 2nd law of thermodynamic and complexity???

 

[notto]

BTW, here is a link to Behe's website and the responses he has received regarding publishing anything that even raises questions regarding the Darwinian theory of origins. It is also a response to your questions regarding the lack of published papers of ID or any other theory of origins that is a challenge to Darwinism:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewithsciencejournals.htm
[/font]

I think you have misunderstood the nature of the content on this page. Behe was seeking to reply to criticism of his currently unreviewed material on ID. He submitted this in the form of a letter. He did not submit a formal reasearch paper or article for publication to the journals he is corresponding to. The content he submitted was NOT as evidence for ID, but was simply a bundling together of parts of his book to try to defend his position and to knock holes in evolution by pointing out supposed gaps in the knowledge of the evolution of various systems. Basically, if we currently don't know how it evolved, God must have done it. This is not a valid way to do research. It was not orginal research or findings but a summary of conclusions on supposed problems with evolution.

Again, he published in the popular press which does not require any peer review or any type of validation and then he complains to the scientific journals when they review the material and find problems with it. They refused to publish his material because it was ****. It remain unpublished due to the very problems the reviewer originally had with it as stated on behe' site.

"If Behe were right in spite of all, it would become apparent in due time through failures of science. It would be very much out of place to denounce such failures now, since they have not occurred. Having not yet understood all of biology is not a failure after just 200 years, given the amount of understanding already achieved. Let us speak about it again in 1000 years. Meanwhile, metaphysicians should spare scientists their metaphysics and just let the scientists do their work--or join them in doing it.

Behe then seeks to get responses to this criticism published in the very journals he avoided with his original work. If this is the best you can do to show any type of published paper on ID, you better keep trying. Behe was NOT submitting any research to the journals he was corresponsing with. Read the page again and I think this will become clear. He provided nothing new in research, finding, or data.

 

[notto]

"Evolution by definition only deals with changes in populations and speciation over time."
Oh, how convenient.

It's been this way since Darwin wrote Origins. Thats what Darwins book was about. It never addressed the start of life because at the time there was no way to pursue it. Science has only recently started to address this question (microscopes, the discovery of DNA, and advanced chemistry have helped).

Evolution deals with changes in populations and speciation over time (thus the title of Darwins book - Origin of a Species). Deal with it.

 

[notto]

OK, I'm done with this thread, but just to summarize

1) No examples of conflicts between evolution and physics have been presented.

2) No examples of published, peer reviewed research has been presented to support ID.

 

[pmh1nic]

"I think you have misunderstood the nature of the content on this page. Behe was seeking to reply to criticism of his currently unreviewed material on ID. He submitted this in the form of a letter. He did not submit a formal reasearch paper or article for publication to the journals he is corresponding to. "

No misunderstanding. This correspondence is an example of the closed minded attitude towward publishing anything (even a letter in response to criticism to issues addressed in Behe's book) that says anything counter to Darwinism. If you can't get a letter critical of aspects of Darwinism published in a scientific journal what chance do you have of getting a research paper critical of any aspect of Darwinism objectively reviewed and published.

"Basically, if we currently don't know how it evolved, God must have done it."

Again you introduce the "God must have done it" into the discussion. Behe doesn't mention anything about God in the letter, all he does is highlight issues related to Darwinism that have not been adequately addressed and challenges some of the current views regarding the answers to those issues. In the response to his letter the reviewers admit that these issues exist but rather than publishing the issues so they can be openly addressed they decline in the hope that answers will be found (answers that of course MUST conform to the Darwinist theory) in this "glorious age" of biological research. If "the remaining question marks are not threat to science" then let them be discussed openly in scientific journals, textbooks and in the classroom.

This is an example of the "painfully" closemindedness mentioned in the scientific community referenced by the initial reviewer.

"It's been this way since Darwin wrote Origins."

Wrong. It wasn't this way before Darwin wrote Origins (the discussion of evolution didn't start with Darwin) and it hasn't been that way since.

A couple of related links:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HISTEVOL.html

Here is another link discussing the issue of inorganic to organic under the heading of evolution.

http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/Projects/origin/home.html

And there are others.

Merriam-Webster definition:

"a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state"

That would include life arising from the inorganic "primordial soup."

"1) No examples of conflicts between evolution and physics have been presented."
They have but you've ignored them.

"2) No examples of published, peer reviewed research has been presented to support ID."

Unlike you (since you're aware of everything that gets published on the subject) I can't make the claim that they do or don't exist. The example of scientific bias presented above may be be one of the reason few if any exist.

 

[Sinai]

Thread topic question: "Are there any serious conflicts between Evolution and Physics?"


Bear:
Although I am not aware of any serious conflicts between evolution and physics per se, there may be some problems regarding mathematics and probability. I have yet to see a mathematic model that supports evolution being solely resposible for the diversity of life on our planet via either random mutation or natural selection--even if one had the full 4.5 billion years we think our planet has existed with which to work. Trying to explain it merely by random mutation or natural selection within the time required by the fossil record is even more unlikely. The theory will need to continually be finetuned as additional discoveries are made.

 

[TheBear]

Thread topic question: "Are there any serious conflicts between Evolution and Physics?"


Bear:
Although I am not aware of any serious conflicts between evolution and physics per se, there may be some problems regarding mathematics and probability. I have yet to see a mathematic model that supports evolution being solely resposible for the diversity of life on our planet via either random mutation or natural selection--even if one had the full 4.5 billion years we think our planet has existed with which to work. Trying to explain it merely by random mutation or natural selection within the time required by the fossil record is even more unlikely. The theory will need to continually be finetuned as additional discoveries are made.

I understand what you are saying.

For me, probability and odds are not a factor. Let me explain. If I was to drop a titanium ball from the top of the Empire State Building, (assuming that there were no pedestrians below ), it would fall, bounce on the ground, roll for a distance, and finally come to rest in a certain spot. The odds if it landing on that precise spot are astronomical.......yet it still came to rest on that spot, nonetheless. I hope this makes some sense.

 

[pmh1nic]

Bear

I doubt a Titanium ball would bounce on the sidewalk below the Empire State building .

Sinai

"Although I am not aware of any serious conflicts between evolution and physics per se, there may be some problems regarding mathematics and probability"

I think Einstein would disagree with you. In his mind (not that I would suggest I could get into his mind ) it may all come down to mathematics. The difficult (as noted in the paper I refereneced in post 48) is quantifying the elements that need to be factored into the equation.

 

[seebs]

I think TheBear's analogy is a good one. Whenever you do anything, the chances of the exact outcome you get are astronomical.

Shuffle a deck of cards.

You have now done something of which the probability was one in 54 factorial.

That is, the odds are one in
230,843,697,339,241,380,472,092,742,683,027,581,083,278,564,571,807,941,132,288,000,000,000,000.

And yet, it happens. All the time.

 

[pmh1nic]

seebs

"Whenever you do anything, the chances of the exact outcome you get are astronomical."

That depends on what you mean by the "exact" outcome and whether or not the possibilities are limited. Laws of physics may limit the possible outcomes or render a particular outcome more or less likely.

If I take that ball to the top of the Empire State building and told that I have to drop the ball from one particular spot with my arms fully extended on a windless day the chances that it will hit a particular spot are increased by the physical limitations imposed.

Shuffling cards may seem to be a blind, random chance event but on closer examination my guess is the human shuffling the deck is probably not exhausting the vast number of possibilities due to limitations in they way they personally handle the cards.

Given our understanding of the complexity of even the most basic living organisms and the properties of the basic materials available to make them a probablities argument is a valid test (not an absolute test) of whether a particular mechanism is likely to have brought about a particular outcome.

An interesting question would be how many of the limiting factors were considered when making the probability calculations related to evolution.

 

[TheBear]

Bear

I doubt a Titanium ball would bounce on the sidewalk below the Empire State building .

Did I say titanium? I did. Didn't I? Sorry. I meant to say rubber.

Anyway, I think my point was made.