Posted on 04/07/2006 4:16:49 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Even as the evolution wars rage, on school boards and in courtrooms, biologists continue to accumulate empirical data supporting Darwinian theory. Two extraordinary discoveries announced this week should go a long way to providing even more of the evidence that critics of evolution say is lacking.
One study produced what biblical literalists have been demanding ever since Darwin -- the iconic "missing links." If species evolve, they ask, with one segueing into another, where are the transition fossils, those man-ape or reptile-mammal creatures that evolution posits?
In yesterday's issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods.
[big snip]
Another discovery addresses something Darwin himself recognized could doom his theory: the existence of a complex organ that couldn't have "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications," he wrote in 1859.
The intelligent-design movement, which challenges teaching evolution, makes this the centerpiece of its attack. It insists that components of complex structures, such as the eye, are useless on their own and so couldn't have evolved independently, an idea called irreducible complexity.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
SKIN with SCALES
to
SKIN with FEATHERS...
'-)
One maybe, or two even, but all the changes defy credibility to me.. Even if evolution DID happen it only effects origins not salvation.. Whether evolution happened or not.. mankind has thoughly proven government is a form of slavery.. especially democracy.. which is MOB Rule..
"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."-G.K. Chesterton
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog."-G.K. Chesterton
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."-G.K. Chesterton
That "winking smiley" -- '-) -- meant I was just chuckling that I'd never seen scales without an underlying skin -- as your
"...scales turned into not only SKIN but SKIN with FEATHERS .."
implied...
Lighten up a bit, my FRiend...:-)
"1. a Creator of the sort described in the various religious traditions humans have espoused cannot be described, defined, or subjected to testing on an empirical basis"
I like science. I am very interested in the scientific method, as long as it seeks The Truth of any matter.
When a particular element is left out of any research, then the conclusion Can Be called into question.
Scientifically there is inductive and deductive reasoning. We do not need to PROVE there is a God by testing or endeavoring to define Him.
As rational human beings we can perceive when an object has been well designed. Sometimes we are even able to distinguish the particular designer by looking at the form of the design.
The more I learn of humans, trees, grass, stars, the planets and what is on some of the planets, I perceive a very detail oriented design from one who thinks at such depth it is beyond our comprehension. The convoluted interconnectedness of all of this speaks so loudly of A Designer.
I wonder why we could not have scientific discussions that just take God as a GIVEN? We have all sorts of GIVENS that are much less pervasive and profound.
We don't even define particular GIVENs. They are just ACCEPTED.
We have Euclidian Geomety and Non-Euclidian Geometry.
Let us have Scientific Enquiry that Includes a possible vector from a Designer. To be tolerant let us name this the Non- Accident Scientific Method.
Don't you get tired of all these Scientific Pronouncements claiming something happened because of an accident. Isn't that a cop out.
Have a good day.
when you begin from the belief that every phenomenon, even diametrical opposites - health and illness, beauty and ugliness, efficiency and inefficiency, organization and entropy, diversity and specialization, excellent design and shoddy design - all point, equally and in themselves, to the self-same Creator, there is simply no way to communicate with you on the matter: When you look at things through a lens which assumes that all discrepancies can be waved off by citing a mysterious deity, you set up a shield against rational discourse which is, bluntly, more effective and impermeable than that offered by the angriest scorned teen on PMS.
"GodDidIt" may be true.
However, by answering everything, it explains NOTHING.
It neither defines nor suggests process nor mechanism, includes within its universally broad "applicability" an inutility to define what events are natural versus which have been guided or altered, and cannot EVER be subjected to measurement, modelling, prediction, or testing. That being so, how can a scientific METHOD be crafted to explore "non-accidental" phenomenology?
For one final time, in the probably vain hope that you will at last absorb the data and accept it as an honest definition of a limit of science:
EMPIRICISM CAN NOT ASSESS A DIVINE ENTITY WHO SUPPOSEDLY CAN DO ANY THING HE SHE OR IT WANTS WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE; TRYING TO DO SO WOULD BE FUTILE, SO IT DOES NOT BOTHER TRYING.
Empirical science is, by its absolute nature, concerned ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY with what can be measured and tested.
SCIO is the province of empiricism.
CREDO is a matter of faith.
One may be true and the other false.
By some ultimate standard:
BOTH might be false.
BOTH MIGHT BE TRUE.
But by practical standards, the two cannot mix.
For the life of me I don't understand where this comment is aimed.
"For cryin'-out-loud, even the dead are ceded a place to stand."
Let me examine the part I can deal with.
"If I'm asking some interesting questions, that's because I have precious little in the way of answers that are satisfying to me."
You know, I have perceived a spot of disgust in your replies. Have you ever noticed "The question determines the answer?"
Enough talk about you, back to the eternal Truths. <;)
I was trying to get down to basics when I asked if you could define Energy. You have made it clear that God can not be defined. I wanted to make it clear that no one has DEFINED Energy, or Light, which is "pure energy".
Yet we know how to use energy and light. Why don't we do the same with God?
Since I am on God's side and you are on man's side allow me to try to define the words you have placed on the table.
"But, I should like some definitions. For instance; what is 'randomness'? Unpredictability? Chance? Or, what? Whatever it is, I should like it to be the same tomorrow as it is today."
God said "I am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow."
Therefore, using Non-Accidental Scientific thought, from God's Point of View, There is no such thing as randomness, Unpredictability or Chance.
From Man's Point of View, there is randomness, unpredictability and Chance, because our vast knowledge is limited.
It seems to me the Chaos theory indicates there is no such thing as randomness, or chaos. It seems to indicate there is a design even when something "Looks" Chaotic.
I could be wrong. Check me out.
You have stated:
"There can be no separation between God and the truth He created."
If I am not mistaken, God did not CREATE Truth. He IS Truth.
"There can, however, be a considerable separation between truth and our feeble understanding (believer and unbeliever alike) of what it is:"
Once I recognize He is The Truth, then I must consider Him in any question, or any scientific endeavor I am involved in.
We can quote from many great and distinguished people of Faith and those without Faith. If we are speaking of God I would prefer to stick with Quotes from Him.
We are discussing Him and Nature. Be careful who speaks for Nature. Some of them think the Earth is alive and Trees should be hugged. This is no joke. Excuse me the people are not joking. Their Theory requires more than a leap of faith.
Faith= "The evidence of things Hoped for."
My definition of 'more than a leap of faith' is "things hoped for", without evidence.
May you faithfully seek good evidence.
Have a good day.
that's called "examining from a conclusion"
It may work for faith, but it is very bad practice in science - see "Human-caused Global Warming" as a prime example.
*snapping fingers*
"Anthropogenic Global Warming"
it all sounds so much more concrete and official if phramed in Greek or Latin.
"PHramed"?????????
ok, definitely way past bed-time
"when you begin from the belief that every phenomenon, even diametrical opposites - health and illness, beauty and ugliness, efficiency and inefficiency, organization and entropy, diversity and specialization, excellent design and shoddy design - all point, equally and in themselves, to the self-same Creator, there is simply no way to communicate with you on the matter: When you look at things through a lens which assumes that all discrepancies can be waved off by citing a mysterious deity, you set up a shield against rational discourse which is, bluntly, more effective and impermeable than that offered by the angriest scorned teen on PMS."
The "diametrical opposites" you list are conditions and states of Man. They are not from the Creation of God. We make a problem for ourselves when we apply our situations and opposites to God. I think that most of the problems on Earth come from the decisions of Men and Women, not God. He is constantly trying to get us through a problem not make the problem. We don't Trust Him we trust ourselves. "We have met the enemy and He is Us."
I do not start with the proposition to figure How God did anything. I start with the point of view "Look, what God did."
I am in agreement that we should examine and do research to understand How things work together. You see, Everything I know points me to what God Said, "I am in everything and everything is in me."
It is stated in IJohn that God is Light.
Well now isn't that interesting. We really don't know what light is. We know some things about Light. And there are somethings about Light we don't know.
What if that part Could be God.
The smallest particle of light that is known so far is called a photon. Photons are part of an electron. That means God is in Everything, Plus He has created the Universe. Everything is in Him.
What else is He doing?
You see nothing I have said disagrees with the scientific Method. It may disagree with some scientist.
Now for icing on the cake.
"EMPIRICISM CAN NOT ASSESS A DIVINE ENTITY WHO SUPPOSEDLY CAN DO ANY THING HE SHE OR IT WANTS WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE; TRYING TO DO SO WOULD BE FUTILE, SO IT DOES NOT BOTHER TRYING."
I am not seeking to asses a Divine Entity. I am seeking to assess what has been created by that entity. You don't start with electricity and have to define it. You just know How to use it. I would expect the same tratment for God.
I call into question that The actions of God leave no trace.
I have never known a true scientist that considers things futile and does not bother to assess something because he can not define it.
I am in touch with several scientists who invent things of great magnitude. Everything they are doing calls in to question many of the "Laws of Nature" used by scientists.
I have used instruments in the military that were said to be impossible in universities in this country. I am now working with a scientist that can take salt water and produce clean water and Hydrogen and Oxygen. He is useing a small amount of electricity to do this and yet he produces 10 MWh of electricity, 1,000,000 gallons of water. No Pressure or heat.
Now most engineers will tell you that is impossible because he is not putting in enough Energy to produce 10 MWh of Energy.
What he does is Energize Photons. They do the work. To energize Photons means to increase acceleration or frequency. E=MC2 A small amout of increase in frequency is squared and produces much more energy than you put in.
I am saying through all of this that what is called scientific is very often hard headed ness. When real scientists use the scientific method and put all vectors into the formula, then we have greater discoveries.
Discoveries= finding out about something that already existed or using an existing concept in a different way.
Have a good day.
"Once I recognize He is The Truth, then I must consider Him in any question, or any scientific endeavor I am involved in.
that's called "examining from a conclusion"
That is the same as using a GIVEN in any equation.
no.
a "Given" is an observed governing factor in a real situation, or a stipulated one in an hypothetical.
what you are doing ("I start with the point of view "Look, what God did." ") is exactly analogous to enviroweenies saying "Look, we all *know* that capitalistic industry is ruining the planet... let's see how we can massage our studies to support anthropogenic global warming."
It is crap science, either way.
have a *thoughtful* day.
"It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can't see things as they are."-G.K. Chesterton
marker
"a "Given" is an observed governing factor in a real situation, or a stipulated one in an hypothetical."
I do agree with that statement. "He is an 'observed goverrning factor in a real situation'".
Take this proposition just a moment.
If you were to realize that God REALLY does exist and that he CREATED the world and all that is in it, then it would be preposterous and the heigth of arrogance to say "I will examine this world and endeavor to understand it without even considering the Presence of God while I conduct my research."
And then a corrilary would state that scientifically, God does not exist.
This is like studying a great painting. Examining each and every brush stroke and the formulas of each color used and the derivation of the elements that go into that painting and never acknowledging the existance of the Painter.
I used to endeavor to do that myself. It has come to me the error of my ways. I use the scientific method daily. The method does not leave out God. I must chose to leave Him out.
Go back thirty years and listen to the pronouncements of Great Scientist and some of their profound thoughts will be considered archaic now. Yet you wanted an answer that would be the same today and always. There is no permanence with the thoughts of man, only God.
The least I can do as a human is to just acknowledge Him in all that I do.
This is not a religious statement. It is a well reasoned argument that leads towards the Truth and not away from the Truth.
Have a good day.
I perceive you are using the scientific method to move towards the truth of a matter.
Without sending offense, I will endeavor to answer well posited questions and also redesign the questions if needed.
"Theists determine to prove that there is a creator through creation. Yet, when science says, "we cannot prove the existance of a creator" the theists will demand that they are being atheists and humanists. So the scientists say, "Okay, I will set out to prove the existance of a deity through sound scientific study to quantify faith."
By definition a Theist believes there is a God. He or she needs no Proof. The scriptures do not endeavor to Prove there is a God, they give voice to the movement of the hand of God in the affairs of men.
As for me, I start with the Belief not only that there is a God, I believe he is concerned about everything in the Universe and beyond, no matter how small or large. And that includes me.
How would we go about Proving the existence of anyone. We would seek to show their effect on the environment around them.
Example: At the age of seven I had my right hand almost completely severed by the glass from a broken jar. A country doctor told me to sit on his desk. He deadened the wound and then sewed my hand back to my arm while I watched him. He used a part of a cigar box to give support to my hand and wrapped it with gause and tape. The doctor told my Grandfather I would never be able to use my hand because he could not sew the nerves back together. He just connected two bones and sewed up the flesh. He told me to not try to move my fingers at all.
I followed his instructions. Two months pasted and I and my Grandfather were sitting in the living room waiting for dinner to be served. My Grandfather was reading the newspaper. I was sitting on the couch.
My right hand with the cast on it was in front of my eyes. I began to try to move my fingers. They moved. My Grandfather had been watching me and he sat up and said do that again. I did. He sat back and put the newspaper back up to his face and said the doctor said you would never use you hand. That was all he said.
Today it would have cost at lease a million dollars to have the micro surgery and there would be no guarantee that it would work.
Later I found that people from three churches, my Father and Mother, My Grandparents and many relatives and friends PRAYED for my hand to be healed.
The nerves had to grow back on their own. They were not attached. How could that happen. I have complete use of my right hand.
How could you perform an experiment to duplicate that experience? You can't.
The individual relationship of the individual to God can not be duplicated by man. It must be duplicated by God.
It is not the capricousness of God. It is the lack of forming a relationship with God the way He wants it done.
We must obey Him. But in Romans 3 he says we cannot obey Him if we do not Trust him. Once we Trust and Obey Him then we can ask anything and It shall be done.
That requires Faith.
Faith, Trust, Obedience are all individual matters with God. We have no way to duplicate that because God is the only one that really sees our Heart (our attitude to God).
Therefore, having "Scientific studies to quantify Faith" will never prove the existance of a deity. He only proves Himself to each one of us if we seek Him. I cannot duplicate that for anyone other than myself.
I believe that us "Theists" do not desire to prove there is a God using the scientific method. We desire to examine the handiwork of God using the scientific method.
You see to examine His handiwork is not to just say, God did it" and that all that needs to be said.
Examine His handiwork to see what He has done and how He has interconnected everything in such a way that all of what we see is NEEDED. To be Needed is to be Loved.
Science can not quantify God.
Science can quantify the design made by God.
Speaking of Evolution, Charles Darwin uses the word Accident at least three times on the first page of Origin of the Species. And his work is called "scientific"?
It appears to me that all other scientific endeavors would never allow the use of the word 'accident' except where there is the need to acknowledge the handiwork of God.
You see I hope that it is coming through that what I seek is that the ability, actions and presence of God be dealt with as we deal with other basic elements we investigate while seeking to understand How all this works.
Have a good day.
In effect, you were asking me whether I find your thought experiment reasonable and convincing. That is, that a closed system comprising a high-density of highly energetic and extremely small particles in random (i.e., essentially uniform in the aggregate) distribution is capable of “self-organization.” The question entails a consideration of entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics more generally. So it seems we need to get some clarity on what we mean by entropy. And that is definitely not as easy as it sounds these days.
Though the classical statement of entropy in physical systems has been around for well over a hundred years now, it seems that applying this concept to biological systems has led to some confusion. Now we hear people speak of different kinds of entropy — for instance, Shannon entropy, logical entropy, configurational entropy, algorithmic entropy and, in living systems, “negentropy.” What is an amateur like myself to make of all this?
Well, if nothing else, this is an opportunity to try to get some clarity on what entropy is. Then maybe I can say whether I like your hypothesis or not.
Then there are additional definitional problems: What is a closed system? What do we mean by “randomness,” “ordered systems,” “self-ordering systems,” and “self-organizing systems?” Are the latter two the same thing? It seems we need answers to these questions, too. Whether we'll get them today is an entirely different question.
Let’s start with entropy. I’m relying basically on Brig Klyce and Rod Swenson as sources here.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives two basic definitions. (1), “For a closed system, the quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.” So in effect we’re speaking of a negative quantity (and for most people it’s just not “intuitive” to think about “negative quantities”). As Klyce notes, today it has become “customary to use the term entropy to state the second law [of thermodynamics]: Entropy in a closed system can never decrease. As long as entropy is defined as unavailable energy, the paraphrasing just given of the second law is equivalent to the earlier ones above. In a closed system, available energy can never increase, so (because energy is conserved) its complement, entropy, can never decrease.”
The second definition of entropy the American Heritage Dictionary gives is: “a measure of disorder or randomness in a closed system.” As Klyce writes, “Entropy is also used to mean disorganization or disorder. J. Willard Gibbs, the nineteenth century American theoretical physicist, called it ‘mixedupness.’… Again, it’s a negative concept, this time the opposite of organization or order.” Klyce says this second understanding of entropy was popularized by the great Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann.
King Prout, if I understand you correctly, your thought experiment seems to be going to this second meaning of thermodynamic entropy in particular. If I’m wrong about this, please let me know.
Klyce goes on:
In spite of the important distinction between the two meanings of entropy, the rule as stated above for thermodynamic entropy seems to apply nonetheless to the logical kind: entropy in a closed system can never decrease. And really, there would be nothing mysterious about this law either. It’s similar to saying things never organize themselves. (The original meaning of organize is “to furnish with organs.”) Only this rule has little to do with thermodynamics.WRT to this “logical entropy” business, it appears Claude Shannon, unlike Boltzmann, never correlated his version of Shannon-Weaver or informational-entropy to physical units — resulting in a further abstraction of a negative concept. And yet, increasingly microbiologists recognize that the successful propagation and communication of information is essential to self-organizing systems — i.e., living systems. As far as I know, there has not yet been a successful integration of these two concepts of entropy, and it appears there is still a good deal of confusion over how these terms are used.
Now for definitions of the other terms mentioned above. What do we mean by a “closed system?” Indeed, King Prout, can you point to any closed system in nature? I mean, we can “close” a system for experimental purposes, but are there really any such in nature? I mean think about it: You’ve got all those high-energy particles whiz-banging around inside your closed hypothetical system. But the real situation appears to be described by quantum theory, which seems to suggest that all physical activity in the universe arises from subatomic particle-exchanges, either particle-to-particle, or particle-to-field(s).
Fields by definition exist at all points in space and time — that is, they are universal. Your model suggests maybe something as small as atoms flying around in a confined space; but quantum theory tells us all the real action in the physical universe takes place at the subatomic level via unbounded quantum vacuum fields. The other thing that quantum theory suggests is that non-locality (which apparently such fields somehow facilitate) is always at work. What is happening in any “local” system could be affected by events taking place at any distance away, even on the other side of the Universe. So to me, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to talk about a “closed system” — as the conventional language of thermodynamics does. Perhaps to speak of a “local system” would make more sense???
Furthermore, as Robert Rosen of Columbia University has observed, “The Second Law … asserts that ... a system autonomously tending to an organized state cannot be closed.” For example:
Consider simply a black bucket of water initially at the same temperature as the air around it. If the bucket is placed in bright sunlight, it will absorb heat from the sun, as black things do. Now the water becomes warmer than the air around it, and the available energy has increased. Has entropy decreased? Has energy that was previously unavailable become available, in a closed system? No, this example is only an apparent violation of the second law. Because sunlight was admitted, the local system was not closed; the energy of sunlight was supplied from outside the local system. If we consider the larger system, including the sun, available energy has decreased and entropy has increased as required.And so the thought has struck me that IF there is such a thing as a “closed system” in nature, it must comprehend the entire Universe itself. But even then, I wouldn’t really know how “closed” a system can be that is constituted by universal quantum fields that are said to host real particle exchanges with “virtual particles” -- which may possibly involve exchanges with entities that do not arise in 4D space-time reality. I don’t know the answer to this, just that I am attentive to the question.
To get to the other definitions, let’s look at your two photographs. I gather I’m to see the picture on top as representing a case of “self-organization,” and the one at the bottom as a high-entropy, virtually “random” state.
In short, to use Swenson’s terminology, the picture at the bottom looks like a homogeneous or disordered “Boltzmann regime,” while the picture at the top looks like the result of the well-known Bénard experiment. Which is particularly well-known to me, because I can replicate that experiment on top of my kitchen stove (i.e., any time I boil water).
Now maybe this probably sounds pretty simple-minded (can’t help it), but I really cannot imagine anything “self” involved with the behavior depicted in the top photo. “Self” implies a certain autonomy. It seems the behavior of, say, Bénard cells is a function of the heat source (putting it very crudely, or more precisely the potential made available by virtue of the temperature differential between the source and the sink of the process): When I turn off the heat source, the boiling soon stops.
But what does such a process tell us about living systems, which it seems clear “self-organize” according to principles that do not reduce to the physico-chemical laws and force-field-driven “near-neighbor” relations exclusively? So that, if you “turn off the heat,” so to speak, they keep on kicking indefinitely? That are said to consist of “far-from-equilibrium conditions beyond the stability of the threshold of the thermodynamic branch,” according to Nobel Laureate chemist Ilya Prigogene?
Klyce writes:
It is true that crystals and other regular configurations can be formed by unguided processes. And we are accustomed to saying that these configurations are “organized.” But crystals have not been spontaneously “furnished with organs.” The correct term for such regular configurations is “ordered.” The recipe for a crystal is already present in the solution it grows from — the crystal lattice is prescribed by the structure of the molecules that compose it. The formation of crystals is the straightforward result of chemical and physical laws that do not evolve and that are, compared to genetic programs, very simple.Indeed, this seems to be the main problem in biology today, whether microbiology or evolutionary biology. And the problem has been noticed by Neodarwinists. It would be interesting to explore this issue in greater detail, but I’ve already run on so long by now. Maybe later perhaps. (I'm game!)
To sum up, I think your thought experiment is logical, reasonable, and internally consistent. But I don’t know to what in living nature it really refers. In conclusion, I think that Wojciech Zurek of the Theoretical Division of the Los Alamos National Laboratory was manifestly correct in noting:
Like all scientific ideas, the concept of entropy, useful as it is, needs to be refurbished and updated and adjusted to new insights. Someday... the two types of entropy [TD and logical] will begin to approach each other in value, and the new theory will become amenable to experimental verification.I’m looking forward to that day!
For now, one thing seems clear: Living systems are somehow contingent on [non-physical] information in order for there to be increasing self-organization and concomitant increasing autonomy over the course of their evolution. And as Werner Loewenstein has observed, “As for the origin of information, the fountainhead, this must lie somewhere in the territory close to the big bang.”
Seems reasonable to me! But then, speaking as a Christian, that would be my expectation.
Thank you so much for writing, King Prout!
I don't see that interference patterns in spectroscopic emissions will necessarily influence material particle density...
More details please on this part...the language appears somewhat vague. Are the emissions electromagnetic? Are the particles charged? Are there magnetic fields extant?
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.