IF evolution is true,

UTEOTW

I am a little surprised by your SPIN but not much.

Isn’t it true
1. that the increase in molecular disorder
2. that follows the increase in entropy
3. caused by the addition of heat energy
4. makes evolution from the original and simplest life form to higher life forms impossible?

Also isn’t it true that the evolution of life from non-life is an impossibility?

 

Let me turn this around on you.

I do not understand how you are saying life is allowed to happen at all. If your assertions were correct, then the growth and maintenence that happens continually in a living organism would not be possible.

But experience shows us that life is possible. We are sitting here at our keyboards after all and this dog at my feet may not look too alive but that is just because she is napping. Life is able to take raw materials and through the flow of energy is able to turn those raw materials into the highly ordered forms that we recognize as life while increasing the entropy of the universe in the process.

Just where are you drawing the line? All that is needed for evolution for proceed is for these lifeforms to last long enough to reproduce and for there to be changes in the genetics from generation to generation. If life itself does not violate thermodynamics then neither does evolution.

[ June 29, 2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

UTEOTW

You seem to have difficulty with the points that you previously were in agreement with so I will post them again.

UTEOTW

I am a little surprised by your SPIN but not much.

Isn’t it true
1. that the increase in molecular disorder
2. that follows the increase in entropy
3. caused by the addition of heat energy
4. makes evolution from the original and simplest life form to higher life forms impossible?

Also isn’t it true that the evolution of life from non-life is an impossibility?

 

Life does not violate the Second Law, evolution does, as I showed above!

 

"Life does not violate the Second Law, evolution does, as I showed above!"

Life violates the second law as you have described it. Let's take a look.

Using your outline...

1. If there is an increase in molecular disorder
2. because of the increase in entropy
3. caused by the use of energy by the organism
4. then growth and repair of an organism by using energy to manipulate raw materials is not possible.

Now we all know that life can actually expend energy to turn raw material into new and useful things and thereby grow and reproduce. Yet this is all that is needed for evolution to proceed. So long as the organism lives long enough to reproduce and so long as the reproduction process is not 100% efficient in its copying, then evolution can happen.

I just don't know how you can say one is possible and the other not. They are the same thing. If you are trying to say that entropy prevents new "information" remember the difference previosly discussed. Entropy can be viewed as a statistical representation of the arrangement of molecules. Changes in DNA are not changing the physical arrangement of molecules it is changing the chemical makeup of a particular molecule. This makes mutations outside of the statistical treatment.

In addition, no one will dispute that mutations happen. There is not a thermodynamic difference between a harmful mutation and a beneficial mutation. They both follow the same process.

So as long as you have organisms that survive to reproduce and so long as mutations are allowed, there is nothing in our discussion to stop evolution from happening.

 

So as long as you have organisms that survive to reproduce and so long as mutations are allowed, there is nothing in our discussion to stop evolution from happening.

That is an incredibly ignorant and naive statement. There is no way known or seen for a cell to make a de novo protein. That is necessary to get from a one-celled organism to a fern, a bat, or a bear, or even you.

If a cell could make a new type of protein for itself, the cell 'innards' would not know what to do with it and would dissemble it rather quickly to use the amino acids to form proteins it did know what to do with.

And then there is the matter of mutations. ALL mutations EXCEPT the hot spot back and forth mutations (which only go back and forth and do not march onward into the unknown!) result in loss -- sometimes of useful information, sometimes of chemical behavior, sometimes correct protein folding. But always there is a loss. Now, if you care to explain how a series of mutational losses can get from a bacteria to a bear, please let us know.

The fact that some mutations provide some kind of benefit for their recipients despite the loss of whatever is very nice. Some fish get anti-freeze blood. Some people are more resitant to malaria. But never is this because of a gain of any kind in the cellular functioning. It is always because of a loss. Same with nylon eating bacteria and antibiotic resistant bacteria. Each case is attributed to a loss, in the latter case, of protein folding.

Evolution can't get here from there. There is no known biological or genetic way for it to happen. It is a fairy-tale born out of the desire to eliminate God from the equation. It is carried on by those who trust men more than God and by those who are remaining intentionally ignorant of the data.

 

"That is an incredibly ignorant and naive statement."

There is context there that is important.

Old Regular was insiting that entropy prevents evolution. Yet the version of entropy he is pushing would also prevent life itself. The point was that entropy is no more a threat to evolution than it is to life itself. If entropy does not prevent life, then it does not prevent evolution.

Now if you wish to make a case that it does, please do so. We have gone down that path before. If you do not, then please recognize the context of the statement. It was in reference to whether entropy prevents evolution. It was not addressing any other objections.

"There is no way known or seen for a cell to make a de novo protein."

But there is. One way is duplication and mutation. The mutation can take many different forms. Here is one example.

"Adaptive evolution after gene duplication," Hughes AL, Trends Genetics, 2002 Sep.18(9):433-4.

A gene was duplicated and one of the copies mutated to give rise to a new function.

In a variation on this theme, two genes that have been duplicated can be combined into a new gene. Here is an example of that.

"Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila," Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, Hartl DL, Nature. 1998 Dec 10;396(6711):572-5.

Another way to produce new proteins exists without even having to mutate the genes. It is called alternative splicing. Genes consists of exon and intron sections. During the process of converting the DNA to protein, the introns are removed and the exons spliced together. Yet organisms can change this splicing such that while the original protein is still made, a new protein is also made by various changes to the process. Maybe an intron is not removed. Maybe an extra exon is removed. There are even more complicated examples. In each case, a new protein is formed from the same raw genetic material without changing the protein that works. When you add point mutations and the copying around of transposable elements, this becomes an even better way to make new proteins.

Another way to get new proteins is to get them from other species. An example. A retrovirus can insert its genetic material into its host. Sometimes this happens in a germ line cell and the virus DNA gets passed on. It happens often enough that a sizable percentage of our DNA are retroviral inserts. These genes can also be subject to mutation and might be made into something useful. Here is an example of that happening.

"Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis," Mi S, Lee X, Li X, Veldman GM, Finnerty H, Racie L, LaVallie E, Tang XY, Edouard P, Howes S, Keith JC Jr, McCoy JM, Nature 2000 Feb 17;403(6771):785-9.

"If a cell could make a new type of protein for itself, the cell 'innards' would not know what to do with it and would dissemble it rather quickly to use the amino acids to form proteins it did know what to do with."

Except that we have observed new proteins being made and the organisms seem to know what to do with them. The new proteins are not that different from the old usually.

"And then there is the matter of mutations. ALL mutations EXCEPT the hot spot back and forth mutations (which only go back and forth and do not march onward into the unknown!) result in loss -- sometimes of useful information, sometimes of chemical behavior, sometimes correct protein folding. But always there is a loss."

See above for examples that do not involve loss.

"Same with nylon eating bacteria and antibiotic resistant bacteria. Each case is attributed to a loss, in the latter case, of protein folding."

What?

Let's look specifically at the evolution of resistance to the antibiotic vancomycin.

Vancomycin works by attacking the D-alanyl-D-alanine in the cell wall of the bacterium. There are two genes, VanR and VanS, whose job is to make proteins to detect the presence of vancomycin. When detected, a cascade of other enzymes are created to protect the cell. VanH starts by converting precursor materials into D-lactate. VanA then joins the D-lactate with D-alanyl to make D-alanyl-D-lactate, instead of D-alanyl-D-alanine which is usually used in the cell wall. VanX hydrolyzes the D-alanyl-D-alanine that is still being made before it can be used in the cell wall.

This is the usual process, but there are variations. Some bacteria have VanB instead of VanA to make D-alanyl-D-lactate. Some bacteria replace the D-alanyl instead and make D-serine-D-alanine component instead of D-alanyl-D-lactate.

Once the resistance evolved, it was spread through plasmids.

And before you say that this was just a latent feature that became activated in response to the antibiotic please tell us just why you think that bacteria would be carrying around a gene such as VanX that hydrolyzes its own cell wall.

 

The above statement [highlighted] is where you leave reality and enter the arena of science fiction.

If the reproduction process is not 100% efficient you certainly could not have upward mobility! In fact you would have the opposite.

 

You are mistaken again. In fact you are disagreeing with statements to which you previously agreed.

 

"The above statement [highlighted] is where you leave reality and enter the arena of science fiction. "

Are you seeing something I am missing?

Using your outline...

1. If there is an increase in molecular disorder
2. because of the increase in entropy
3. caused by the use of energy by the organism
4. then growth and repair of an organism by using energy to manipulate raw materials is not possible.

"If the reproduction process is not 100% efficient you certainly could not have upward mobility! In fact you would have the opposite."

So you are saying that a mutation that would lead to a benefit is not thermodynamically favorable and one which leads to a harmful mutation is thermodynamically favorable? What is the difference between the two? Maybe you are saying that mutations do not happen. But if they do, and if there is not a way to prevent beneficial mutations, then your problem goes away.

"You are mistaken again. In fact you are disagreeing with statements to which you previously agreed.

Again, I think I am missing something here. I just canot follow where you are going with that.

I think what I said was "So, the question I will ask is what is the effect on the total entropy of an organism when it eats? I am not quite sure, myself. But in the end we are concerned with the flow of energy. The daily processes of an organism, such as growth, maintenance and movement, require energy to be spent. It is when this energy is released that you also get an increase in entropy because this is when some potential energy, chemical, is turned into work which is going to release some heat.

"But it is this flow of energy that allows life to happen. Whatever decrease in entropy an organism might have due to growth and repair is more than offset by the increase in entropy of the surroundings due to the inefficiencies of the process. It is also important to note that life operates far from equilibrium and that entropy is considered to be an important driving force to keep life itself going because of this."

 

I said the following

</font>[/QUOTE]Your response only validates my statement that these theories are "moving targets" ever-changing and often invalidating each other (Steady State vs. Big Bang, etc).

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Quantum_gravity#String_theory_versus_loop_quantum_qravity


HankD

 

Actually the Scriptures do teach a "Big Bang".

At the end of this present world however and not the beginning.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Which is also contrary to the "Big Crunch" theory.

HankD

 

"Your response only validates my statement that these theories are "moving targets" ever-changing and often invalidating each other (Steady State vs. Big Bang, etc)."

Interesting link. I do not know much about loop quantum gravity. I think I could explain string theory in very basic terms to someone who did not know what it is but I could not even begin to describe loop quantum gravity other than to explain why it is needed.

More to the point, science will always be a moving target. If there were not unknowns, there would be no reason for doing the work. I am not sure whether there are really many theories that invalidate one antoher, though. The steady state universe has no observational support and is therefore not a competitor to the Big Bang. To stick with our other example, some think that loop quantum gravity and string theory may be different expressions of the same theory. There is presidence for that possibility. A few years ago, it was shown that the 5 competing string theories were all just different representations of the same underlying theory, M-theory.

"Which is also contrary to the "Big Crunch" theory."

Well, with the recent observations of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, I don't think we have to worry about a big crunch.

 

Whew, that's a relief!



HankD

 

Here's a link to a guy who thinks your comments are somewhat naive!

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html

Here's an interesting quote from that link, which speaks to your notion that a new protein cannot evolve:

Let me explain again how a new protein can get settled into a species.

First, mutations come along and attack the proteins a population is using on a steady basis.

The population has some individuals with the mutations and some without.

Over time, those members of the population that have mutations in their proteins that represent a net hindrance to their reproductive ability experience a decrease in their representation in the population, precisely because of that hindrance the mutation brings. The bad mutations are eventually eliminated in that way.

Over time, those members of the population that have mutations in their proteins that represent a net gain in their reproductive ability experience an increase in the population and even come to replace the individuals that lack that mutated protein.

Once the genome has come up this slightly improved place, the whole thing can begin again, and it can accumulate over and over.

A million little changes can equal a very big final change.

Arguing that evolution can't possibly result in a large complex result is like saying you cannot become a millionaire by saving just a penny a day, no, not in a million years.

 

Can't let you guys get away with that. Energy comes in many forms. Energy can be stored as chemicals, for example, and then released by a chemical reaction. This occurs every time you eat something - you live off the chemical energy you just gathered into your body. Energy can be stored as potential energy. Every byciclist knows that after he huffs and puffs up the hill he gets some of that energy back on the way down the other side! Energy can be stored as electrical charges in capaciters. Energy can be in radiation, and in heat. Einstein even proved that mere mass is energy according to e=mc^2.

So let's not go around here saying that all energy is heat! But we CAN say that all energy can theoretically be converted to heat.

 

Proof?

 

Its true! All this time I have been wrong!!!! I saw the missing link. They are starring in the latest GEICO commercials.

 

Proof? </font>[/QUOTE]I think what he means to say is that all science is a natural pursuit independant of theistic philosophy.

At this moment there are virologists in many Asian countries studying several new strains of avian bird flu which are mutating at an alarming rate. I believe it started among chickens and spread to other animals and now it has started spreading to humans. If it continues it may begin to spread from human to human which could result in hundreds of millions of lives lost world wide. Scientists don't study these viruses through prayer or diligent theological pursuit, they study them through strictly natural means. That's how all science works my friend, regardless of whether one is a Christian, Buddhist or atheist.