Subject:
|
Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:05:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
136 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> How about another point of view?
> msnhomepages.talkcity.com/SpiritSt/billdonahue/Abiogenesis_Impossible.htm
>
> -Jon
Sorry for the delay in replying to this -- I've just spent a few very
relaxing days by the beach!
*Donahue's introduction
Two glaring flaws. He links abiogenesis to species-becomes-species
evolution, and says that if he can disprove the former he has disproved the
latter (the "it's all Evolution anyway" fallacy (see Jon and Larry's
discussion)). It's conceivable (if exceedingly improbable) that God sneezed,
and in the cosmic snot there was one bacterium from which everything else on
earth evolved. Donahue also claims that evolution is totally chance based:
see my post here: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8827 .
*1st law of thermodynamics/space-time is finite
Quoting Donahue, "If matter and energy exist now, then they either always
existed or sprang from something else. The 1st law of Thermodynamics says
that matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. Assuming that
this "Law of Physics" is true, then matter and/or energy are either eternal
or were created by a force that isn’t subject to the laws of Physics. Other
than God no force is known that can explain their creation so the
"Evolutionary Model" must rely on the premise that both matter and energy
are eternal... How did time come into existence without being created by a
force which (or whom) resides outside time and space?. No force has ever
been observed or offered to explain this from a natural process, in the
"Evolutionary Model" [therefore it must have been God]. "
As Larry has pointed out, the singularity at the beginning of the universe
is unknowable with our physics. Donahue doesn't allow for the possibility
that this singularity ocurred without any supernatural help. Further, his
argument borders on the ridiculous: how could we observe the force that
ceated the universe _within_ the universe it created? Or maybe we can...
maybe new universes are being created down the other end of black holes? At
any rate, singularities can't be observed directly, so the argument is moot
(not automatically lost by the scientists).
*2nd law of thermodynamics/entropy doesn't allow for order
On his first argument (solar system is entropy closed), I'm happy to accept
that all the energy needed for life to evolve on earth is inherent in the
sun and earth (and a few meteors etc). The randomness of the energy expelled
by the earth is sufficient to account for the order found on it (as conceded
by Donahue), including the processes which generate that order, including
evolution. The energy waste of billions of living things metabolising their
environment in order to eke out an existence is massive compared to the
small amount of energy consumed in culling out the most wasteful organisms.
*Law of mass action = no polypeptides in the primeval soup
This argument assumes life began in a watery soup (may well have been a clay
or other formation with a much lower proportion of water), with protein
(current best guess is RNA), and that said protein would have to have been
fully functional. The last point is most interesting: self-replication and
biological function may have been late accruing aspects of abiogenesis (look
for Graham Cairns-Smith's work for these sorts of discussions).
*The early earth couldn't produce modern life
The dextrorotary/laevorotary (DR/LR) argument suggests to me that life had a
single origin. Once you have a structure that provides a template for pure
amino acid chains, any DR amino acids will be fatal. This is a great example
of natural selection for pure LR producing/integrating mechanisms.
My understanding of evolutionary history is that anaerobic (non-oygen
respiring) bacteria came first, for whom oxygen was a toxic byproduct. They
produced so much oygen that they changed the composition of the atmosphere,
producing a new niche into which aerobic (oxygen using) bacteria developed.
I think this is consistent with the facts Donahue describes, if not his
conclusions.
* The fully-formed watch that appears from nowhere arguments
These are well refuted by, for example, Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker".
He clearly explains how complex systems can evolve from simple origins,
bypassing all the "it could never happen in a zillion years even if the
universe was a zillion times bigger than it is" type of arguments.
Any questions?
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
