Thermodynamics

The Imperial Curmudgeon undertook an analysis (dated 12/30/03) of my post on The Imperial Firearms Advisor's post. I'm not that great at expediting links so if I made a mistake on this issue, pardon me.

I take issue with this part of Professor Poretto's post:

Unfortunately, the foundation of Will's argument, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, doesn't say what he thinks it does. (Trust a former astrophysicist to be picky about such things.) It applies solely to the aggregate entropy of a closed system. [UPDATE: I believe that is a bullshit argument because it is an attempt to get around the problem of increasing order. I discuss it in the comment section below. - Will] It dictates nothing for an open system -- a system capable of importing net non-heat energy from "outside" and expelling heat and wastes to "outside." Zones within a closed system may exhibit decreasing entropy for indefinitely long periods of time; else, life could not maintain itself at all. Moving from theory to practice, laboratory researchers have demonstrated the spontaneous formation of amino acids in primordial-Earth conditions, so there's no real objection to the evolutionary thesis on the basis of practical implausibility.

As for the "microchips" analogy, it doesn't hold up: the fundamental properties of a primordial-Earth environment and the things in it differ qualitatively from those of a random assemblage of electronics. For one thing, the elements and small molecules in a primordial-Earth scenario are all highly mobile and reactive. For another, the energy flows into that system are various, powerful, and chaotic; they contrast sharply with the way energy enters an electronic assembly.

Sorry, Francis, but I'm all too familiar with that "closed system" argument. It doesn't wash. In plain English, your interpretation (the all too common one) that a system which can absorb energy from some outside source, misses the whole point. Incoming energy, high or low, does not explain order. Adding energy does not increase order. If my car won't start because the electronic ignition computer has malfunctioned, would it be wise to wire my system to 110v AC? No. The car was meticulously designed to run on 12v DC. Adding more energy would mean more destruction to the "closed" system. Cars and computers are "closed" systems that need to be maintained. They don't repair themselves. Biological organisms have programmed DNA that contain instructions for repair and reproduction.

When someone can show me a computer that can recognize that it has been infected with a virus and then produce antibodies on its own to go out and attack the virus without any human intervention, I'll start believing in spontaneous biogenesis, and I'll put every dollar I've got into that company's stock.

I can increase the energy flowing into any system, but it does nothing to organize the elements into a machine. It requires intelligence to take materials and energy and make them into something useful. "Closed system" is dodging the real point. As brilliant as you are, I am amazed that you didn't catch my point about the Fox/Urey/Miller experiment. The so-called creation of amino acids in a supposed primordial environment.

We are supposed to believe, without any evidence, that millions of years ago there was practically no free oxygen on the face of the earth. Why? Because amino acids and RNA/DNA and most protiens and other living things (anaerobic bacteria does not hurt my argument) cannot exist in the presence of free oxygen without a highly developed cell membrane. Urey, Miller and Fox assumed, because the dogmatic faith of evolution demands it, that the atmosphere, once upon a time, fit their concept of what would have had to be true since evolution is undoubtably true. Circular reasoning to the nth degree. Further, notice that methane and ammonia, two animal waste products begs the question of how did those compounds arise. There is not a damn thing spontaneous about forming a huge glass aparatus with a precisely formulated mixture of water, methane, ammonia closed in said aparatus with a cathode and anode sending controlled charges into the mix.

Next, the very fact that very intelligent (yet foolish) scientists had to put a lot of thought (intelligence) into developing an experiment and apparatus that could create rudimentary compounds. They could only create 2 of the simplest amino acids, while there are 22 in the human body. But the most important thing is that they created the expected isomeric blend of 50% right hand and 50% left hand molecules. This in no way reflects what we see in nature. Amino acids artificially produced in the lab, if right handed, are useless in biology. In order for biological compounds to be viable, something has to "tell" them how to assemble.

Enzymes that aren't "built" right, won't function in a biological system.

My microchip analogy holds quite well, and you went so far as to punctuate it for me by pointing out that uncontrolled energy in nature is often quite chaotic. Life is more often destroyed by chaotic bursts of energy, and no experiments have ever shown that life has arisen from varying inputs of energy into inanimate matter.

The whole thing boils down to information. Information does not happen randomly. Closed system or open system. The convention of language and thought point to intellect, sentiousness. There had to be a designer. Go back to my computer analogy. Forget missing the point of how much design and intelligence is required to build just the hardware in a PC. Some intelligent entity has to imagine and then write the code to make that hardware useful.

Here are the two competing formulas between creationists and atheists/evolutionists:

Evolution: Time + Matter + Chance = Life

Creation: Matter + Intelligence = Life

The big problem with Chance is that it isn't an entity. Chance is merely a convention of language to describe a condition. Chance describes the probability of something, but it has no influence on the outcome.

Isn't it interesting that among all the billions of life forms on the planet Earth, only mankind does not simply behave according to DNA programmed instinct. Man seeks to manipulate and control his environment. Man dreams big and conceives amazing things. I believe it is because we were created Imago Dei.

Astrophysics is enough to convince me that all this stuff didn't happen without an incredibly, incomprehensible being at the helm, but when I look at the biology of animal and plant life, I shudder even more. Mankind can only make shoddy imitations of the abilities of certain creatures. The sonar of bats, the skin of dolphins, the diving ability of whales and sea lions, spider silk.

We think because we know the chemical composition of DNA that we understand it. Hogwash.

Comments

[Francis W. Porretto]

Will, I think you give too little weight to something I mentioned (and which is part of the excerpt you featured): experiments under primordial-Earth conditions have indeed resulted in the spontaneous formation of amino acids from far simpler chemicals. So whether or not it actually happened that way millions of years ago, it could have happened that way -- just as God could have created the Earth "old" -- that is, complete with its geological record that appears to support the thesis that it's existed for four billion years and has gone through several convulsive changes in chemistry and meteorology.

There's a degree of freedom here, which is as it should be. If the evidence of Divine design and supervision were irrefutable, Man's mind would not be free on the most important of all subjects. The evidence suggests that God, if He exists, wants there to be alternative explanations for everything.

[Commander Will]

Francis,

I gave it all the weight it deserves.

First, your statement: "experiments under primordial-Earth conditions have indeed resulted in the spontaneous formation of amino acids from far simpler chemicals" is a great leap into the unknown and unknowable. Know one knows what "primordial" earth conditions were, and furthermore there is no evidence to support that the artificial environment created by Fox, Urey, and Miller ever existed, and there is geological evidence that there has always been a relative abundance of free oxygen in the atmosphere.

Your second contention points to something that I think proves the Bible to be accurate, and it is also supported by things I observe about people all the time. Romans 1:20 states it quite well, but to use a day to day example, just look at democrats: Despite all the evidence that proves Friedman's economics is the correct model, they insist that Keneysian(sp?) economics is the way to go. To them, the only reason communism hasn't worked yet is because it just hasn't been given enough of a chance.

To hide behind "it could happen," despite all the logical evidence that says it isn't practical and that the overwhelming odds say it really isn't possible, but because we can't prove an unprovable theory, you retreat to the agnostic position even though the consequences could be disastrous.

You are free to believe what you want to believe, and it is the vast majority of people who choose to believe what they want to believe, but I choose to believe that ignoring evidence that seems clear and convincing and touting evidence that is misleading and just plain false is dangerous.

I think you need to read, by Michael Behe, or by Denton or by A.W. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. (3x)

[Commander Will]

Those books are:

"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Denton

"Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" by Denton a Ph.D. microbiologist

"The Natural Sciences Know Nothing Of Evolution" by A.E. Wilder-Smith Ph.D.s in Chemotherapy, Microbiology, and Pharmacology.