Evolution: a red herring?

Isn't there some industry that has as it whole basis the concept of improving things by mutations? It's called Genetic Modification or something?I know I'm old and slow, but doesn't that show that genes can be changed in ways that are advantageous?If there are enough examples of genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability to support a whole industry, doesn't that kinda blow the idea that it is impossible out of the water?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why is it that laws are only "useful approximations" when they don't do what we want them to do. The fact still remains that no one can give an experimental example of where these "useful approximations" have been violated which is why they are laws. I am going to give you the proof in very basic form, if you understand the laws of thermodynamics then you will see the logic of the proof. I have wasted too much time here already so I don't want to waste any more time explaining thermodynamics to you (please don't try to say I don't understand thermodynamics because my doctoral work is in the area of physical chemistry and I graduated with a 4.0 GPA). The only loophole in the proof is to say that these laws don't apply to this special situation, much like many evolutionists will say that the law of biogenesis does not apply to the very first organism but only to everything that followed it. Of course this is the kind of reasoning is only wishful thinking and not experimentally verifiable. OK, so here goes:Either the universe has 1) always existed or 2) not always existed . I can think of no other possibilities, let me know if you can.
If the universe has always existed then you have to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy and is most commonly stated as "The entropy of an isolated system, not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium." Entropy is also often described, although somewhat inaccurately, as a "measure of disorder". The important thing to remember is that when energy is converted from one form to another the conversion is not entirely efficient. Some of the original energy that was converted (for example in going from chemical energy to mechanical energy) is always lost to the environment (typically in the form of heat) and this lost energy has become less "available" to do useful work than it was previously. In simple terms then, entropy is essentially a measure of the degree to which energy has lost its usefulness and this applies to the universe as a whole. At some real point in time, when all the "hot" objects have cooled and all the "cold" objects have been somewhat warmed up the entire universe will be "lukewarm" so to speak. This of course applies to all forms of potential energy and you may have heard some physicists refer to this as the "heat death" of the universe - a time when entropy has reached its maximum because, although all the energy in the universe still exists (still satisfying the 1st law of thermodynamics), none of this energy is available to do any work. In short, the fact that we exist demonstrates that possibility 1 cannot be true because if the universe is infinitely old then such a state (the heat death) would have already been reached.So then, if you correctly say that the universe 2) has not always existed then you have two more sub-possibilities:
2a) the universe created itself or 2b) Did not create itselfI hope you can see quite clearly that if the universe created itself then we have a little problem called the first law of thermodynamics. Let me know if you need me to expound on what the 1st law is in real terms. This leaves us with the only logical choice, from a thermodynamic perspective which is 2b) the universe did not create itself. If it did not create itself then by simple deduction we have to conclude that the universe was created by an external force, a creator.I don't think you can argue against this except by saying that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the universe as a whole but it would be hard to make such an argument based on known science. You have to invent something new to get around it, something not testable by science, a religion if you will. Atheism in the end is just another religion which is based on faith. An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist he can only have faith that God does not exist. What is faith but merely the belief in something non-provable?

I see one obvious problem. You equate "always existed" to "infinitely old". But if past time is finite then the universe could always have existed yet still have a finite age.I also think that it is rather foolish to condemn evolutionists for not believing an impossibility. The "law" of biogenesis is incompatible with the idea of a "first organism". If there is a first organism it cannot come from preceding life by definition. That's not a "loophole" - it's a necessity.

Sure but that is to improve things to our advantage, not to the advantage of the organism, so it is only beneficial in the context that humans will go on propagating it.Think of the animal breeding programs which produce practically sterile animals with severe health problems, these aren't maintained as a population because of they fit a niche in the wild but because they fit ones defined by the arbitrary whims of humanity. Well since to a large extent GM involves the transfer of genes across large stretches of taxonomic distance, i.e. jellyfish fluorescent protein in rabbits, it isn't a suitable model for mutation in general unless you consider huge leaps of Horizontal Gene Transfer to be occurring at a much higher frequency than current observations suggest.TTFN,WK

But that's exactly the case - you don't understand thermodynamics.Thermodynamics are the statistical rules that govern thermodynamic systems. Nether the first, second, nor third laws makes any reference to the creation of universes. Since absolutely none of this follows from the first law as understood by either chemists or physicists, I have to conclude that you do not understand thermodynamics, and that you're probably lying about your credentials. There's no evidence for God. That's the proof he doesn't exist; the same as it's proof that fairies don't exist, unicorns don't exist, and there are no such things as elves. There's no faith required to be an atheist, which you would know if you had ever talked to any of them.But I guess you don't seem to have a problem taking ideological positions on subjects you are completely ignorant of.

What about GM efforts that simply improve disease or predator resistance or that allow something to grow in a different environment?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think you are starting to get a little harsh a little soon.Stick to the facts and try to avoid losing your temper with someone who is arrogant and ignorant. Thanks.

. . . Isn't there some industry that has as it whole basis the concept of improving things by mutations? It's called Genetic Modification or something?

​

I know I'm old and slow, but doesn't that show that genes can be changed in ways that are advantageous?

​

If there are enough examples of genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability to support a whole industry, doesn't that kinda blow the idea that it is impossible out of the water?

I am no expert on gene therapy but I think this field is used to correct DEFECTIVE genes which are a result of mutation in the first place. This is alot different than the idea of introducing or modifying normal DNA to give rise to a more viable human or even another species of human altogether, which would be the analogy needed in order to support evolution in this context.Please people, don't get me wrong here. It is not my point to disprove the theory of evolution, I don't believe it can be disproved at this time in our history. I am only trying to get people to see that we are throwing basic scientific principles out the window in order to accept evolution without question.Can anyone here say, without any doubt, that its impossible for the theory of evolution to be wrong? It would seem by some of the comments here that we have some participants who have the knowledge of absolute truth because they get angry and just down right mean when challenged instead of engaging in thoughtful discourse.I thought the whole purpose of this forum, was to discuss both creation and evolution. It appears as though I am the only one here who doubts evolution so why not just change your forum to the Evolution forum. Is there anyone else out there on the other side of this?

Again this is not the sort of mutation we see day to day but rather the wholesale cross-species transmission of genes. This sort of cross-species transmission of some genetic material does happen more frequently in plants than in large metazoans but still not to the extent we would need to view Genetic modification as a suitable model of evolutionary processes.Again the fact that this is almost always in the context of agriculture or livestock farming, i.e. a manmade environment, makes this a difficult example to use with someone like EODoc who is hung up on things in their 'natural' environment.TTFN,WK

Yup. You are not an expert. And I was not even talking about Gene Therapy. Of course it can be disproven. So one single example of "Special Creation" and the TOE goes out the window. If a dog ever naturally gave birth to a cat, the TOE goes out the window. Of course the Theory of Evolution will change as we gain new insights and information. However it is certainly the best explanation to date for what is seen.What HAS been proven wrong beyond ANY shadow of a doubt is "Biblical Creation". Only the Ignorant doubt Evolution. In the words of the Clergy Project letter: They go on to say: Currently over 10,000 US Christian Clergy have endorsed the letter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, no, not gene therapy - genetic programming:

quote:

---

Genetic programming (GP) is a patented[1] automated methodology inspired by biological evolution to find computer programs that perform a user-defined task. Therefore it is a machine learning technique that uses an evolutionary algorithm to optimize a population of computer programs according to a fitness landscape determined by a program's ability to perform a given computational task. The first experiments with GP were reported by Stephen F. Smith (1980)[2] and Nichael L. Cramer (1985),[3] as described in the famous book Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection by John Koza (1992).

---

Genetic programming - WikipediaIn other words, the use of mechanisms you claim don't work to produce exactly what you claim they can't produce - complex structures and programs. Wrong about what? I'd say, at this point, it's pretty much impossible to honestly doubt the fact that organisms inherit traits from their parents, that mechanisms of genetic replication are not completely perfect, and that a given population tends to produce more offspring than can be expected to survive in their environment.And as long as those things remain true, you'll have random mutation and natural selection, and therefore evolution. There's no more a possibility that evolution is wrong than the laws of chemistry are wrong. Which is not to say that it's impossible, but just extremely unlikely. Nobody here is accepting it without question. Evolution has been constantly tested for a century, now, and it's met every challenge. Don't confuse the fact that we've been convinced for some kind of lack of skepticism on our part. I used to be a creationist who refused to accept evolution. There was nobody who was more of an evolution doubter than I.But I was convinced by the evidence. As was everybody else. The only reason you haven't, yet, is because you're largely ignorant of what that evidence is. There are plenty of creationists around here. But even they know better than to advance the grade-school level of argumentation you've been presenting. The bar for science is set pretty high around here, and excuse me for saying that you aren't meeting it.

That depends to a large extent what you mean by 'the theory of evolution'.I would be very hard put to believe that all modern multicellular animals aren't descended from a common population.I find it virtually impossible that there could be evidence contradicting the concept that men and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.I doubt that any clear barriers to genetic plasticity other than those caused by genetic and environmental constraints exist, i.e. the barriers of kind.It certainly would be impossible to show that organisms don't show mutations and that these can be beneficial and that such mutations will propagate through a population, since it already has been shown.SO what exactly do you mean, and while your at it you could get round to defining information for us as well.TTFN,WK

Dear Crashfrog,I am just wondering on what basis that you proclaim to have a better grasp on thermodynamics than I do? I am not saying that you don't, I would not be so presumptuous because I know nothing about you, but was just wondering what your educational credentials are. Its easy to say I don't understand something as well as you do, and I may be able to accept that if you give me a good reason to believe it. But what have you done to demonstrate your expertise in the area of thermodynamics or in science in general? If you don't have an advanced chemical degree then is it possible that its you who doesn't fully understand thermodynamics? And if you don't really understand it fully then of course you would never now that you don't understand it. If your going to throw stones at me then I hope you at least have a shield to block the return fire. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that you have more academic experience in the area of thermodynamics than I do but how can you expect me to take your criticisms without knowing your background.Already I can see that you have abandoned all logic to emotion at this point because of your statement:

. . .There's no evidence for God. That's the proof he doesn't exist

This is just irrational, no other way to describe it. By this logic then we should never look for evidence of anything since the current state of lacking evidence for a particular thing or idea is all we need to prove that the thing does not exist. Does anyone else here find this to be quite "unscientific"? But then perhaps I am the irrational one? I have to consider that possibility because only an irrational person would rule out that its impossible that he is being irrational ;-)

. . . There's no faith required to be an atheist, which you would know if you had ever talked to any of them

I know many atheists. The more logical ones realize that their belief requires a step of faith, just as any religion does. You can retaliate with emotional diatribe all you want but you cannot get around the logic of my argument as long as we can agree that words actually mean something. Let's look up the definition of the word FAITH. To make it easy just go over to Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com . In the current context its clear that we are talking about the 2nd definition of the word which states:"2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."Can you provide a reasonable scientific proof that God does not exist? Of course not. Therefore you are only left with your FAITH that he does not exist (please don't tell me that I can't prove that God does exist because even if I cannot it still irrelevant to your faith). And this greatly offends you because somehow you have come to a place in your life which equates faith with ignorance. Not everything in this life can be answered by science. You equate faith with ignorance because you don't want to fathom the possibility that you might be wrong, because the thought of being wrong on this issue is terrifying. In the end, like the law of gravity, your belief has no effect on the reality of the situation.

The fact that I can read, and see that neither the first, second, nor third laws refer in any way to the creation of universes? I don't see how what I could tell you would possibly matter. I mean I'm sure I could invent some very impressive educational credentials indeed, but without my real name (which I won't provide), you won't be able to verify them. And you knowing what schools I went to and what subjects I studied wouldn't make my arguments any more correct than they already are. Well, properly understood the research, for one thing. And I haven't tried to misrepresent physical law to promote my religion, either. I expect you to argue from the evidence, as I am. Our backgrounds are irrelevant to that. But you insist on arguing from your own anonymous authority. Can you understand why I fail to find that compelling, especially when you say things that I know are wrong? But we have looked; we've looked exactly where God is supposed to be. God is supposed to be everywhere at once, remember? But the fact that he's not anywhere we've ever looked is sufficient to prove that that god doesn't exist. Of course, you could redefine God to change the criteria, but how does that bear any relationship to truthfinding?The proof that god does not exist is the fact that the only evidence ever brought forward is based on make-believe. The proof is that god has the same morphology as other things that are mythical, and is nothing at all like anything that is real and exists. Since this is a science forum, let's stick with the definition of "first law of thermodnyamics." Can you show me where that law refers to the creation of universes being possible only by God? This is true. But to conclude from this fact that any willy-nilly process - like just making things up - produces truth is incorrect. Science is not the sole path to truth. But not all paths lead to truth, and religious revelation, theology, and woowoo thinking are such paths.

After reading this thread from the beginning, I don't think it has managed to stay on topic for more than a few posts. Message 43 is the revised topic.I don't see that anyone is attempting to discuss the topic. Since this seems to be turning into the same old evolution discussion, I'm closing this thread permanently.If anyone feels that they want this topic reopened and can actually discuss the intended topic, please make your case in the appropriate thread listed below.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---