Origins of Life

[Kelly]

I don't want links, I want it in the original words of the person posting. Links are too easy, and requires little thought on the person who cuts and pastes--it is the lazy way out.

[jerickson314]

BTW, LittleShepherd:

Looking for the standard evidences for evolution? See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/. For the creationist objections, see http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp. For the evolutionist objections to those objections, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html. For the creationist objections to those evolutionist objections, see http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp.

[LittleShepherd]

I don't want links, I want it in the original words of the person posting. Links are too easy, and requires little thought on the person who cuts and pastes--it is the lazy way out.

Did anyone here claim to not be lazy? I certainly didn't! You got what you asked for, even if it's not in the form you would have chosen(which is really a problem with you and your preferences, not the information). Thanks, jerickson314! I have to go to work now, and wouldn't have had time to reply with all that info anyway.

[jerickson314]

I don't want links, I want it in the original words of the person posting. Links are too easy, and requires little thought on the person who cuts and pastes--it is the lazy way out.

The problem with my own words is that I am not as well-versed as you in this subject matter anyway. I prefer to point you to someone with more knowledge, essentially to the arguments that seem convincing to me. Even though in this case I happen to be linking to someone who agrees with you and disagrees with me.

When capable of forming my own case, I do so. But in this case, anything I would say myself would repeat what has been said elsewhere. I will say that irreducible complexity is an example of a problem with at least naturalistic evolution.

The reason I generally reject theistic evolution is that it contradicts a literal reading of Scripture. I believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, and find no good argument that evolution must be true. However, I will be clear that I do not believe that a belief in theistic evolution is a threat to salvation. I just think it is probably wrong. However, I am open to the possibility that it might be true.

The majority of scientific findings can be easily harmonized with Scripture, for example heliocentrism and an old universe. I am confident that since Christianity is true, no valid scientific finding will contradict it. However, sometimes a particular view of the Bible must be modified to match a scientific finding. I opened the thread on "Theistic Evolution and Genesis" to discuss this possibility regarding theistic evolution.

[Frank2005]

Well, I agree that it is not Christian to reject empiric evidence of the nature of the world around us, but I have yet to see hard evidence *against* ToE here (or anywhere else, for that matter).

An evidence against naturalistic evolution is lack of sufficient time. When dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago, the highest animals survived were birds. To evolve from birds to humans in this time span is really a miracle. I believe God must be involved in this evolution. However, some people think it is possible without God's intervention. Scientifically, it is indeed possible, but with near-zero possibility.

Naturalistic evolution is a possible process. You may provide evidence against it, but there is no way to disprove it. I think it is a waste of time for Christians trying to disprove naturalistic evolution. The best way to convince people the existence of God is to "Show them the God". For more information, please see

God could be detected by gravitational waves

[sandy_mcd]

...To evolve from birds to humans in this time span ... is indeed possible, but with near-zero possibility.

Naturalistic evolution is a possible process. You may provide evidence against it, but there is no way to disprove it. I think it is a waste of time for Christians trying to disprove naturalistic evolution. The best way to convince people the existence of God is to "Show them the God". ...

I think Frank2005 makes some very good points, especially the last. As long as the statistical probability of something is non-zero, then it is impossible to prove it didn't happen that way and pointless to try and do so.

sandy

[Dan]

...To evolve from birds to humans in this time span ... is indeed possible, but with near-zero possibility.

Naturalistic evolution is a possible process. You may provide evidence against it, but there is no way to disprove it. I think it is a waste of time for Christians trying to disprove naturalistic evolution. The best way to convince people the existence of God is to "Show them the God". ...

I think Frank2005 makes some very good points, especially the last. As long as the statistical probability of something is non-zero, then it is impossible to prove it didn't happen that way and pointless to try and do so.

sandy

That's not science then, that's guesswork. Evolution can't be grounded in chance, it must be a process that DEMANDS the emergence of complex lifeforms. Chance demands entropy, entropy is the opposite of complexity, for evolution to be valid it must be grounded in a scientific principle that basically forces life to evolve into more complex organisms, rather than the entropic tendency of all objects in the universe to break down into simpler objects.

[Kelly]

The a priori stastical probability that a specific grain of sand will stick to you after a day at the beach is astonomically small. Does this mean that God put that grain of sand there? Conversely, the a priori probability that at least one grain of sand will stick to you after a day at the beach is very high. Does this mean that God doesn't exist?

Statistical arguments of this type are meaningless, especially since we are still very ignorant about large parts of biology, a knowledge of which is essential to assign any meaningful probabilities.

[jerickson314]

The a priori stastical probability that a specific grain of sand will stick to you after a day at the beach is astonomically small. Does this mean that God put that grain of sand there? Conversely, the a priori probability that at least one grain of sand will stick to you after a day at the beach is very high. Does this mean that God doesn't exist?

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... hp?p=12699 - the same logic you are presenting, put a different way. I will comment there when I have a chance but am crunched for time right now.

[Frank2005]

it must be grounded in a scientific principle that basically forces life to evolve into more complex organisms, rather than the entropic tendency of all objects in the universe to break down into simpler objects.

According to Darwin's theory, the principle that forces life to evolve into more complex organisms is "survival of the fittest".

The entropic tendency does not prevent the formation of more complex system. Although the entropy of a closed system (e.g. the whole universe) never decreases, the entropy of a local region within the closed system may decrease, as long as the total entropy of the closed system does not decrease. After the Big Bang, our universe expanded dramatically. Its entropy must increase dramatically, allowing the entropy decrease of local regions due to formation of stars and planets.

If all objects can only break down into simpler objects, water molecules would never combine to form liquid water and we would never have rain.

[Ben]

Well, I agree that it is not Christian to reject empiric evidence of the nature of the world around us, but I have yet to see hard evidence *against* ToE here

I'm not exactly a science expert, but there are a few observations I've made on the theory of evolution, and why I have no faith in the theory. You guys seem pretty onto it, I was hoping you might have some answers I'll just start off with this one.

There's a big problem of information, if we evolved from single celled organisms over billions of years through random genetic mutations, we still have the problem that genetic mutations don't produce new information.

[Frank2005]

if we evolved from single celled organisms over billions of years through random genetic mutations, we still have the problem that genetic mutations don't produce new information.

Information is closely related to entropy. While entropy measures randomness, information measures order. The statement that "in a closed system, the entropy never decreases" is the same as "in a closed system, the information never increases".

It is true that genetic mutations in an isolated DNA (a closed system) don't produce new information, but the evolution from single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms is through association of many unicellular organisms to form colonies (reference). In this local system, the information may increase (or the entropy may decrease).

The evolution from single celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms is a miracle. However, it is theoretically possible. You cannot use it to disprove the naturalistic evolution.

[sandy_mcd]

While I agree with Frank and Ben that the development and changes of life forms do not seem to be well explained by random mutations, I was taught a different concept of entropy.

Information is closely related to entropy. While entropy measures randomness, information measures order. The statement that "in a closed system, the entropy never decreases" is the same as "in a closed system, the information never increases".

I am not aware of any scientific definition of "information" (Shannon's use of information and entropy are mathematical, not scientific). Entropy on the other hand is a well defined scientific quantity just as volume and energy are. And just as volume and energy have units (eg cubic feet and BTU's) and can be measured with numerical values (a 3 cubic foot box, a 5000 BTU air conditioner) , so can entropy.

Example (found with Google, copied from http://csrri.iit.edu/~howard/biol403/th ... amics.html
The entropy of single molecule can be characterized by statistical-mechanical methods if the molecule is simple enough. The following table, adapted from table 2.1 in Zubay's Principles of Biochemistry, breaks the entropy of liquid propane into translational, rotational, vibrational, and electronic components:
type of entropy kcal/(degK-mol)
translational 36.04
rotational 23.38
vibrational 1.05
electronic 0.00
Total 60.47

sandy

[Frank2005]

Shannon's use of information and entropy are mathematical, not scientific

It can be shown that Shannon's definition of entropy in the information theory is the same as Boltzmann's definition of entropy in statistical mechanics. The only difference is in physical units. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy

-------------

By the way, since the entropy of a closed system can never decrease, the entropy of our universe (a closed system) at the Big Bang must be very low. How could our universe start with such a highly ordered state? Where did the initial order come from? This IS the evidence for a creator.

[sandy_mcd]

By the way, since the entropy of a closed system can never decrease, the entropy of our universe (a closed system) at the Big Bang must be very low. How could our universe start with such a highly ordered state? Where did the initial order come from?

This is a topic I wish someone else would post on. I not only don't know the answers but am not even sure if the questions are valid. For awhile, I thought that the question "What existed before the Universe ?" was meaningless since I had read time (and space) were properties of the Universe. But in another thread, (just looked it up) True origin of our universe will be resolved soon http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... highlight= you point out that a bulk universe and string theory can be used to validate the question.
I don't understand these things (physics of early universe) and form my opionions on references and information provided by more knowledgable posters such as yourself.

sandy