Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
"My understanding of the suit is that since the ID guys had no "peer reviewed" articles that had been properly published in a proper scientific journal, nothing they had to say carried any weight and was summarily thrown out."
"Since the Theory of Evolution has been extensively "peer reviewed" it carries so much weight that nothing stated to be covered by the accepted theory is to be questioned."
"Is that about what the ruling said?"
______________________________________________________
No. Perhaps you should read it.
______________________________________________________
"My request is for a "peer reviewed" and "acceptable, published" article or study, or series of studies that show how they originated, and how they were inherited by all these species that apperantly have no evolutionary connection."
__________________________________________________
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on eye evolution. You can start with the simpler web pages available, and graduate to web-based library sources for peer reviewed articles (for many of which, not unexpectedly, you will have to pay a nominal fee -- peer reviewed journal articles and the journals that publish them are rarely free).
General web sites:
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003603.html
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/group/fernaldlab/pubs/2004%20Fernald%20EvEyeBBE.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/3/1426
Web-based library sources include the following (the links are to pages within the sources listing search responses for "eye evolution"):
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search;jsessionid=em4t18letl05.henrietta?title=eye+evolution&database=1
http://www.springerlink.com/(neztbjbu1tj0n245ou3r3m55)/app/home/search-articles-results.asp?referrer=main
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ne.15.030192.000245
Sorry. My links to Springerlink and PubMed (ncbi) were to the home pages. You will need to type "eye evoution" in the search box to pull up lists of responsive articles (and you can, of course, type in whatever else regarding evolution you wish to research).
My last link, to arjournals, has a PDF shortcut to a reasonably good article.
It's quite apparent that you haven't read any of this thread, let alone the original article. I believe every single one of your questions -- except the one about the "great new discovery", which is the exact opposite of what is being claimed -- has been exhaustively addressed by Dr. Sewell, myself, or other posters. Do the work and catch up first -- including clicking on the links and reading them -- and then post.
(It's precisely Sewell's point that evolutionists have been using hand-wavy arguments up to now ("earth's an open system, so there"), and he is the one insisting on specifying the boundary conditions and doing the math.)
Try turning your monitor the other way up or something, I don't know... you seem to have gotten yourself a little confused here.
Well here it is right here.
"I think the concern is that random mutations resulting in an increase in information in the genome would appear, at least intuitively, as a spontaneous increase in complexity, order, and -- more importantly -- a decrease in entropy."
Entropy is defined as the log of the number of states available to a system times a constant. How does the realization of any particular possible states, or combinations thereof, violate the 2nd law?
" the increase in information in the genome involved in evolution is precisely that difference."
The "information" involved is the states available, nothing else. Here the states are simply combinatorial possibilities, the persistence of which depends on the viability of the machine their function depends on. Note that in this case that any and all "info" that is contained in the set of combinatorial possibilities is true and each contributes equally to "complexity", regardless of it's effect on the overall machine's viability.
Not to jump in where I don't belong, but ....
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm is just excerpts from Origin, which was neither peer-reviewed, as best I recall, or written by a trained biologist, nor does it, by definition, have a discussion of the evidence for eye evolution since Darwin, mainly just speculation.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/3/1426 seems to indicate that the evidence suggests that evne the arthropod compound eye has evolved multiple times, suc that "...one of two seemingly very unlikely evolutionary histories must be true." In other words, it doesn't solve any problems for the evolutionist, it just clarifies which problem needs to be solved.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/fernaldlab/pubs/2004%20Fernald%20EvEyeBBE.pdf doesn't seem to provide any particular evidence (at least that solves the problems), but rather seems to reiterate that it's basically an unsolved problem, along with the usual evo speculation and just-so-story type deal.
I'll read the other links and see if this gets any better.
You can't apply any math at all without specific boundary conditions. Thermodynamics is useless in the argument, pro or con, without specific knowledge of the system.
If my first 2 questions have been addressed, I fail to see it. No mention of specific alleged steps that violate thermodynamics. No mention of why evolution seems to work fine now today, in spite of such supposed violations. Just standard obfuscation of the issue.
My monitor direction is fine. Sewell should get some more peer review before publishing a book like this, because somehow his 'revelations' have skipped past the entire biochemistry and physics communities.
This is almost getting surreal. You'd look a lot less anti-intellectual, you know, if you read the document you are attacking before you attacked it. You could then, maybe, quote something from it specifically. At least that Perakh guy read the thing first, or at least enough to quote from it. If you have a system @ time T0 with a certain entropy level, and then later you have the same system at time T1 with a lower entropy level, then even if you don't have a clue as to the nature of the system in between time T0 and T1, you know that something thermodynamically interesting must have happened at the system's boundary to reduce the entropy. You can certainly do the damn math to show what information must have entered the system, for example, even if you don't know how. The whole freakin point is that we don't know what the system was!!!!!!!
Suppose I have an empty desk. I go to lunch. I come back. I have 1 computer on my desk. I don't know what exactly happened while I was gone, but I know that 1-0 computers were introduced to my desk in that time. So unless I can come up with an explanation for the introduction of 1-0 computers to my "desk system" from across the desk system boundary, then I have a mystery. Or else I misremembered the situation before lunch. (NOTE: this example is highly simplified for the simple.)
Are you trying to say that it's impossible to apply thermodynamics to anything to which humans were not a witness? Are you saying that the spontaneous emergence of life from non-life raises no thermodynamic questions at all?
No mention of specific alleged steps that violate thermodynamics.
Like going from the primordial soup to the first living organism? No, that's never been mentioned.
No mention of why evolution seems to work fine now today, in spite of such supposed violations.
What's sad is I don't think you're kidding about this part. Ok, how about you submit a link or two to studies that have showed evolution before our eyes involving a spontaneous increase in information in the genome. (The paper I cited actually has a couple of these, but since I know you haven't bothered to read anything on this thread, I know you don't know that.)
Just standard obfuscation of the issue.
I'll pay cash to anyone who thinks your posts have a higher information content than mine or Sewell's article. In psychology, this is known as projection.
Sewell should get some more peer review before publishing a book like this, because somehow his 'revelations' have skipped past the entire biochemistry and physics communities.
Before I tell you what peer review he got, why don't I let you tell us, because it appears you must know in order to make a statement like that.
Now I think I finally know what quote mining is!!!
You take my quote where I say "I am not stating that a process of evolution violates the 2nd law" and claim I am lieing by using a subsequent quote where I cite arguments that I have never made?!?!?!?
You liar.
If you look back, that second citation was from a response to js1138 because he was adamant that he wanted to know what was supposedly different about evolution vs. regular biological processes (yes, yes, they're the same, right!?!?) such that evolution would violate SLoT and normal life would not. I found that argument for him and presented it, not as my own.
You either don't know the difference between presenting someone else's argument to the best of your ability and presenting your own opinion. I don't know nearly enough about this subject area to make the argument as my own, but I can certainly present it as I find it.
Given that ignominious introduction of yourself, I probably ought to dismiss everything else.
Entropy is defined as the log of the number of states available to a system times a constant. How does the realization of any particular possible states, or combinations thereof, violate the 2nd law?
Yes, I think we're all familiar with statistical mechanics by this point, thanks. But don't these states have probabilities associated with them? Are you saying that there is no relationship between the relative entropy of a statistical mechanical system and the probability associated with the state that it is in?
Are you also saying that if we take the genome, say, of brewer's yeast and that of homo sapiens sapiens, we just have a different state of the same "bits"?
The "information" involved is the states available, nothing else.
So it's your view that the work Thomas Schneider is doing @ the Molecular Information Theory Group @ NIH is completely misguided?
No, I'm saying you at least have to have some idea of what chemical processes you are talking about and what environment they took place in before you can apply thermodynamics.
Are you saying that the spontaneous emergence of life from non-life raises no thermodynamic questions at all?
No, I'm saying we don't even know what questions to ask yet, given our ignorance about the environment of abiogenesis.
Like going from the primordial soup to the first living organism? No, that's never been mentioned.
I meant something a bit more specific. Is it the formation of amino acids that is thermodynamically impossible? The synthesis of the first enzymes and RNA? The ability of RNA to self-edit and efficiently carry genetic info? The ability of RNA to construct primordial DNA? The ability of DNA and RNA to synthesize proteins into a simple cell membrane? The ability of DNA to exchange information? The linking of DNA into primitive genes? I'm finding it difficult to identify where any of the steps required for primitive life to form require the necessity of the suspension of thermodynamics.
What's sad is I don't think you're kidding about this part. Ok, how about you submit a link or two to studies that have showed evolution before our eyes involving a spontaneous increase in information in the genome.
It's called gene replication. Is there some law of nature that would prevent replicated genes from mutating, and yes, adding information, as you so like to put it? Are you telling me we don't see evolution occurring in modern time?
I'll pay cash to anyone who thinks your posts have a higher information content than mine or Sewell's article. In psychology, this is known as projection.
Disinformation, maybe. I'm not trying to provide a lesson in thermodynamics here, only trying to point out the falsehoods in what's being presented here. Learn a little about things gene replication before you posit silly things like "evolution can't increase genetic information".
Before I tell you what peer review he got, why don't I let you tell us, because it appears you must know in order to make a statement like that.
I didn't see any journal articles of his relevant to thermodynamics in any respected physics journals. Do you know of any? If not, this should be an immediate red light. Somehow this guy's findings are good enough for the general public, but can't get them published in a mainstream science journal? Suspicious indeed.
Oh, the old "you can't critique our theory because we have no theory" defence. OK.
Seriously, though, you must realize that you can't hide behind gradualism again to get around the laws of physics. If I tell you how I'm going to go up a flight of stairs and divide the process up into a gazillion, infinitessimally small, gradualistic steps, I'm still going to have to account for my increase in net potential energy from state A to state B.
If you define the system correctly (a big if, perhaps), internal mechanisms within the system don't change the fact that you start with a certain state and end with a certain state, and if you have climbed a thermodynamic hill, as it were, you have to account for that. Perhaps there is some fantabulous process that does account for it. But you still have to account for it.
Is there a law preventing genes from adding information? Well, yes and no. Shannon's development of information theory and the application of thermodynamics and entropy to this area would seem to suggest that if you've got a spontaneous reduction in entropy you might want to try to explain it.
Maybe natural selection is the necessary input? Has anyone every quantified that? Are the inputs to Schneider's simulations valid, or has he built information into the system? Just throwing out hail-Mary speculation isn't enough. And I'm not qualified to critique each and every one of your claims you throw out after the previous one has been discredited.
But, contrary to what you've suggested, my point is not that evolutionary theory violates SLoT, but rather that there is an apparent problem here that needs to be investigated scientifically, quantitatively, and a viable explanation developed that accounts for the apparent emergence of information from nothing. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the topic to make solid argument myself. But I can tell when someone is denying there is an issue worth investigating when there is.
You can call it "silly" all you want to try to see if a theory of biology is consistent with more fundamental laws of physics. I call it good science.
And yes, I'm telling you we don't see evolution occuring in modern time, at least not macro-evolution. Now you can post a link to some activist silliness on talkorigins. Yawn. (I believe other people have done a thorough job of critique that nonsense, so I won't duplicate it here. Everytime I've wasted my time looking into their claims I've been disappointed. Don't you have any objective sources?)
Feel free to post some links to scientific evidence which shows that "evolution" which has been observed can be extrapolated to explain the full biodiversity on our planet. I'll be happy to take a look.
And why should he only publish this paper in a physics journal? It's a cross-disciplinary topic. He could publish it in a mathematics journal, or any journal on evolutionary biology, or even information theory, etc., etc. And he did.
What is the difference in entropy between the following 2 sequences?
AGTAGCGTAATTGGA
AGGTTGAATGCAAGT
The spatial configuration of the paired strand is a double helix, the bond strengths are essentially equal and the pair length is 15 for both. Entropy here is a funciton of the number of states available, not the distribution of states. That's, because the probability for any particular base to occur is 1/4 for all 4 bases. That means equal probabilities.
"Are you also saying that if we take the genome, say, of brewer's yeast and that of homo sapiens sapiens, we just have a different state of the same "bits"?"
As far as thermodynamic entropy is concerned and the string length is comparable, that's correct.
Re:The "information" involved is the states available, nothing else.
"So it's your view that the work Thomas Schneider is doing @ the Molecular Information Theory Group @ NIH is completely misguided?"
Thermodynamic entropy is not the subject of informaiton theory, nor is Shannon's entropy a state property. See what Schneider says about it. The information of concern to Schneider is not a physical property. It's a rational abstraction of a sentient being that physics does not follow.
"quote mining... liar...I don't know nearly enough about this subject area to make the argument as my own, but I can certainly present it as I find it."
The lack of proper reference, disclaimer and use of the phrase "I think", both explicitly and implied, renders the accusations unjustified.
I thought it was already clarified that the entropy decrease of the biosphere was accounted for by the input of energy from the sun. Problem solved. First you argue that we can't look at a thermodynamic process in a net step because of the constituent systems that would be required to create order. Then, when I suggest looking at the constituent systems, you argue that you have to account for the net change. All thermodynamics can do is look at particular systems and account for the changes of entropy/thermal energy in those systems. If you define the system as the entire biosphere over the last 3.5 billion years, then the net energy input and entropy change is all you can look at. Clarify the system and its environment. Then thermodynamics can be done. Till then, it says nothing.
If you define the system correctly (a big if, perhaps), internal mechanisms within the system don't change the fact that you start with a certain state and end with a certain state, and if you have climbed a thermodynamic hill, as it were, you have to account for that.
What hill do you speak of? A net change in entropy? Energy input solves that issue. You're speaking very generally here, so a general answer is all that can be given.
Shannon's development of information theory and the application of thermodynamics and entropy to this area would seem to suggest that if you've got a spontaneous reduction in entropy you might want to try to explain it.
Which we try to do in biological systems, which are hard to mathematically define, even in the simplest such systems. A growing plant from a seed certainly results in a 'spontaneous' organization of matter. Are you saying this is a non-physical process, simply because we can't exactly define the parameters in thermodynamic terms? Similarly, you can't dismiss the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution just because we don't understand all the thermodynamic parameters. That is simply ridiculous. (The old we-don't-know-everything-so-we-know-nothing argument.)
You can call it "silly" all you want to try to see if a theory of biology is consistent with more fundamental laws of physics. I call it good science.
Of course it isn't silly to see this. There's just no good reason to suspect that any evolutionary process breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Just throwing out hail-Mary speculation isn't enough.
Of course not. That's why evolutionary biologists don't try to make statements about thermodynamics that can't be quantified.
And I'm not qualified to critique each and every one of your claims you throw out after the previous one has been discredited.
What view held by mainstream science do you think it that has been discredited on this thread? I haven't seen one.
And yes, I'm telling you we don't see evolution occuring in modern time, at least not macro-evolution. Now you can post a link to some activist silliness on talkorigins.
Why would you dismiss a collection of scientific information ad hoc as 'activist silliness'? I hate to break this to you, but evolutionary biology happens to be a field with a wealth of scientific info supporting it. The evidence supporting macroevolution is well rooted in fossil evidence, morphological homology, genetic analysis and biogeography, but that's a different subject all together. All Talkorigins does is present information as supported by the mainstream science. You can dismiss any science that doesn't support the predetermined conclusions of creationism is 'activist silliness', or you could learn what it's about and why almost all professional scientists support such a robust theory.
He could publish it in a mathematics journal, or any journal on evolutionary biology, or even information theory, etc., etc. And he did.
He published in the Mathematical Intelligencer, I see, a journal which, in its own words, "welcomes expository articles on all kinds of mathematics and interdisciplinary trends, and articles that portray the diversity of mathematical communities and mathematical thought. Humor is welcome, as are puzzles, poetry, fiction, and of course art."
An exposition of how thermodynamics prevents evolution seems appropriate for the humor category, I can't see it belonging anywhere else. I don't know of a journal in evolutionary biology, biophysics, or anything else relevant in hard science that would touch this stuff with a 10-foot pole.
How about fiction which the journal explicitly welcomes and the author clearly provides.
What the heck? Wrong again, pal. As I clearly explained, you misrepresented the facts, selectively quoted me out of context, in order to accuse me falsely of being dishonest.
Anyone can go back and see this plain as day with their own eyes. You don't save your credibility somehow because I didn't provide a "proper reference" or used the phrase "I think". The facts are before everyone's eyes and you stand condemned by your own words.
Since you have demonstrated your dishonesty and unscrupulousness in this small matter, an issue where the facts are before anyone who can read, it is manifestly clear that you have no interest in truth, cannot be trusted as honest, and are yet another lieing, slandering, misquoting ideologue whose only interest is in "drive-by science" that tries desperately to shore up a own position by closing one's mind to any and all challenging ideas or evidence.
I see no reason to indulge you further and try to re-correct the various misunderstandings and apparent confusions in your post. It's quite apparent you are not interested in truth, in good science, or even attempting to represent the relevant facts accurately. As anyone familiar with this field knows, the study of entropy is already prone to enough misunderstanding and confusion even by well meaning, well informed scientists without agendas; trying to maintain a discussion of this subject with someone like yourself, then, stands little chance of success.
You have soiled yourself.
BTW, if you think Schneider is not trying to demonstrate evolution's ability to increase information in the genome, you might want to fire off a note to your pals at TalkOrigins to tell them to remove it as evidence of such from their site.
What is this? The Beavis and Butthead hour? Some people are trying to have a serious-minded discussion about science. Do we need a separate, plastic-coated kids' table for you people?
Oh my goodness, we are back at the very beginning!!! Would it kill you at least to pretend to have "done the homework" before coming to class and opening your mouth??? Go back to the original article upon which this thread is based. Then read post #1. Follow the sequence of increasing integers after that.
Otherwise I guess this may be some sort of fundamental difference between how physicists and biologists view science. As long you sit in the corner drinking the KoolAid, surrounding yourself with like-minded ideologues, shouting down and laughing at every unorthodox point of view and view "science" as a project entirely devoted to shoring up what you already believe, you're going to be practising quackery.
It's apparent you are not even vaguely familiar with the arguments which you are attempting to rebut. Is that how science is done? Anyone can discredit a caricature. A fool can burn down a straw man. Where did you learn that this was called "science"? Evolution U? I'm not going to try to force-feed you knowledge. You're going to have to demonstrate a little bit of initiative on your own part here.
What view held by mainstream science do you think it that has been discredited on this thread? I haven't seen one.
No kidding, Sherlock!!! Once again, it's obvious you haven't even read this thread. How many times have I said that I, at least, have NEVER ATTEMPTED TO DISCREDIT A VIEW HELD BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. How on earth would a discussion on a website discredit a scientific viewpoint? Science isn't done in chatrooms, Einstein.
He published in the Mathematical Intelligencer,
I'd be willing to bet good money that the average poetry contributor to the MI has probably forgotten more physics then you'll ever know. This sort of schoolyard approach to science is part of the reason you are not taken seriously (outside the schoolyard).
The evidence supporting macroevolution is well rooted in fossil evidence, morphological homology, genetic analysis and biogeography, but that's a different subject all together.
Thank you for your little confession of faith. I'm quite familiar with it, thanks. I didn't realize you were personally familiar with all this evidence. Very interesting.
Also, while I'd be very happy to dismantle various contributions to TalkOrigins, I think that's outside the scope of this thread. I'd just like to know how many of their contributions you have personally validated, not from a cheerleading rah-rah point of view, but with an attitude of scientific skepticism. If the answer is none, then on what basis do you proclaim their legitimacy? Or is pro-evolution propaganda self-verifying?
Your entire argument seems to consist of the premise that there's not enough of an issue here worth spending any scientific effort on (thermodynamics/entropy and biological evolution). This is completely belied by the fact that numerous serious scientists have spent time and effort on these issues. I guess they didn't get the memo!
Why don't you go ask Wiley how many credentialed scientists have been willing to put their name on a letter providing a similar analysis to yours of the relevant section of Sewell's book! Clue: The answer rhymes with hero.
You've failed to address any of the science and post inaccurate accounts of what science says. I posted the relevant page from Schneider that should have cleared up your confusion of thermodynamic entropy with "info". If you read it, you failed to understand it, because you came back with:
"BTW, if you think Schneider is not trying to demonstrate evolution's ability to increase information in the genome, you might want to fire off a note to your pals at TalkOrigins to tell them to remove it as evidence of such from their site."
************
"Some people are trying to have a serious-minded discussion about science. Do we need a separate, plastic-coated kids' table for you people?"
Yeah, right,
"If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth's atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!).'
Equating DNA to car parts, chips and books is Beavis and Butthead. The physics demand DNAs production. There is no entropy difference that leads to any particular combination of base pairs. Physics doesn't demand the production of the other objects. As I said before, there is no entropy diffence leading to any particular combinaiton of bases. The second law says nothing about function and that's what Sewell is claiming. Sewell is incompitent, or is deliberately lying. Take your pick. In either case he's a fiction writer.
RWP and Quark both recognized Sewall's claim rubbish and RWP provided a link to a more substantial refutation in post 1360. I'm sure there are others on this long thread that did the same. It would be a rarity if any member of the National Science Foundation failed to agree that Sewall's analysis and claim is rubbish. That, considering Sewall's claim is old and has been solidly refuted for close to, or over 50 years at least.
I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics (1981a, 92:526, parenthetical comment in orig.).
I'm afraid I don't have the full citation handy. If I find it, I'll post it. It's like Dr. Hoyle's here reading this thread!
It took hundreds of posts, if I'm not mistaken, to get anyone on your side to provide even the slightest attempt to back up their claim that Dr. Sewell's arguments were "hilarious". And then the first such argument was based on the claim that he was subscribing to a false understanding of entropy -- the same false understanding used by an enormous number of trained scientists as it turns out.
Ya, I've alread referred to RWP's terribly impressive link to Perakh's tantrum-pretending-to-be-science post on pandasbum.com or whatever. After the first page of insults and the second page on nitpicking irrelevancies I got a little bored. I'm afraid the scientific journals I read tend to have a different approach to science than Dr. Perakh. It tends to focus more on, um, science and less on, um, namecalling and pedantry.
Some general claim that everyone probably agrees it's rubbish is meaningless froth. Sewell's analysis is pretty much simple and irrefutable calculus and mathematics. If you can point to someone qualified who has debunked it in scientific terms -- not hysterical, Marxist-inspired tirades -- feel free to post a link.
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.