THE END OF EVOLUTION?

Hi Lucy, Yes, they suggest it. They are speculating. The source you cite is not a scientific paper. It was written not for a peer-reviewed journal, but for Time. It is interesting speculation, but nothing more. What a bizarre statement. Of course evolution can be described mathematically. Where there is hard data, based upon observation, it can be described mathematically. As things stand, we do not have every conceivable bit of data describing the entire history of evolution on Earth, nor will we ever have such data. This is no different to, say, geology.The way to study evolution's status is by observing the distribution of alleles in living populations. That, after all, is what evolution is. Where is the problem? That is another interesting statement, considering that you have never shown any inclination to "rely on the experts".As it happens, you are not required to rely on anyone. Nothing is stopping you from educating yourself on the subject. Why not take a degree course and gain some expertise of your own? Study the evidence for yourself, nothing is stopping you. Buggered if I know. I don't suppose that anybody really knows. The only way your likely to even get close to an answer though, is by looking at some serious studies, rather than just journalistic reports.Do you have a peer-reviewed study that says that evolution has stopped? Do you have a peer-reviewed study that says that evolution has speeded up by 100 times? Or do you only have speculation? Speculation? Sure, why not? The only problem would be if someone were to mistake your speculation for a claim to genuine knowledge. Of course, you're not doing that, are you? No it doesn't. Only in a closed system. I can't believe you guys keep claiming this. It's just so silly. No, because as long as our sun keeps burning, there is no equilibrium to reach.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I'm glad that you understand that the article consists of speculation. I hope you also understand that whether their speculation is right or wrong, it has no bearing on the ToE. The ToE is not dependant on one story of natural history or another. It is not dependant on whether the human race speciates at some future point or not.You have not even touched on the actual Theory of Evolution at all. A cheap shot, untrue and irrelevant. Untrue I'm afraid. Our knowledge of natural history, as the story of evolution, is being constantly updated, that is true. But the ToE has hardly changed since the development of the modern synthesis. That is your problem. The fact remains that you are not obliged to "rely on the experts", you can find out for yourself. If you can't be arsed, that is your look out. Since you admit that you're knowledge of biology leaves something to be desired, yo are poorly placed to accuse "experts in the field" of basing their work on assumptions.You have provided no evidence that any field of scientific endeavour is based upon assumptions. If that is the case then you had better alert the Nobel prize folks, because you have just rewritten the book on physics. The universe, when viewed as a whole, is a closed system. Really? Which law? Certainly not the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is just nonsense. Equilibrium with what? What on Earth are you talking about? No, the question is what any of your rambling misapprehensions have to do with the Theory of Evolution. Nothing I suspect.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Greetings pcver,

quote:

---

What I said was: "...the structure of a DNA strand is holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT". And that's because there is this mysterious phenomenon called -- Life.

---

But to be clear, you do believe that DNA cannot be formed naturally due to the 2nd Law. Isn't that the case?

quote:

---

I am quite stringent with definition. Evolution is definitely not just change over time. Mutations must lead to changes that lead to new species to qualify as evolutionary.

---

You are nit-picking. Evolution, at its most basic, is simply change over time. You can describe it in any number of more descriptive and more sophisticated ways, but it remains, in essence, change over time. Which is pretty much the same as what Percy was suggested you had said. You are nit-picking again when you suggest that Percy has misrepresented you.Why not stop being evasive and concentrate on answering the question which is before you; why should the 2nd Law be a problem for the formation of DNA, the cell or any other biological unit?Please explain in detail why thermodynamics is an obstacle to evolution.

quote:

---

the burden of proof is such that the onus is on you to provide an evidence that evolution has already created a structured information system.

---

Actually, Lucy brought up the topic of the 2nd Law. This is Lucy's thread. That leaves the onus on Lucy and anyone else who wants to make the same argument.The overwhelming majority of biologists and physicists see no reason why thermodynamics should present a problem for the ToE. If you disagree so strongly with the experts in these fields, the onus is on you to explain why. Otherwise, you will likely be dismissed as just another crank (sorry).

quote:

---

Supposing I say that represents 30 random mutations over 50 years.

---

WTF? Why on Earth would you assume that? News flash; not every life form in the human evolutionary tree would have lived for 50 years. Most would have lived far, far shorter lives. The results of your back-of-the-envelope maths are thus invalid. You have also forgotten to take genetic drift into account. Once again, you are creating bogus calculations. No-one is impressed.

quote:

---

But I'd to make it clear when I refer to beneficial mutation, I really mean beneficial in evolution sense, not 'beneficial in a context sensitive sense'

---

But evolution is context sensitive. The context is the environment and the means of interface between environment and organism/population is natural selection.

quote:

---

It seems the mutations in E.Coli amounts to a "data change", but not a "function change".

---

I'm sorry, but this is utter crap. You are being lied to, hardly a surprise when you get your information about science from a website with "creation" in the title.Lenski's bacteria evolved a new ability, the ability to metabolise citrate. It was not an ability which they possessed before. It was a new ability. It emerged right there in the lab. If that is not an emergence of new function, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us precisely what would qualify as such...

quote:

---

I'm still curious whether Lucy is female...

---

It's not relevant. Concentrate on what is being said, not who is saying it.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thanks for your reply pcver,

quote:

---

Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT.
But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible.

---

Oh well then, that's not a problem then. No-one is claiming that DNA formed by "random chance". No current theory of the origins of life base the origins of DNA on random chance.An unguided process acting under natural forces is not random, it is merely unguided.

quote:

---

Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating.

---

Don't be silly. Words have multiple levels of meaning.

quote:

---

Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ??

---

Most certainly not! That would be less correct. Evolution is not random, it is governed by natural selection.

quote:

---

Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things.

---

Then why not tell us all what you mean by "structured information system"? The term does not seem to be a biological one. You can't just use random terms and expect everyone to know what you mean.

quote:

---

the onus is on anyone that makes a positive claim to provide an evidence.

---

And claims have been made to the effect that the 2nd LoT poses a problem for the ToE. If this is your contention, then kindly provide some evidence to that effect.I am not going to hand-walk you through every single interaction between the theory of evolution and the laws of thermodynamics, demonstrating at each point that there is not a problem. That would take an infinity. If you think that there is a problem, point it out. Shit or get off the pot.

quote:

---

The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness.

---

Make up your mind. Is there a problem or not?Also, I must point out once again that evolution is not random. The mechanism you refer is well known and has been so for 150 years! It is called natural selection.

quote:

---

Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT

---

Actually it can, it just can't do it forever and it can't do it for any length of time without additional information being added. But as we know, evolution isn't random and the sun adds new energy to the systems on the Earth, so that's cool eh?

quote:

---

I thought that was quite enlightening and I don't know why you got so excited.

---

I am not excited. I have seen people get things wrong before.

quote:

---

How about you provide a guess-estimate how many mutations will be needed for evolution to form a human from scratch?

---

Why? What value would it have? Pointless and uninformed speculation isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

quote:

---

Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".
So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate.

---

Listen, however you choose to wriggle around it, the fact remains; Lenski's bacteria evolved a new trait. They did not "learn" to eat citrate, they evolved a new capacity, changing from non-citrate-eating bacteria to citrate-eating bacteria. If that is not an example of new information forming then whatever definition of "information" you are using is meaningless.

quote:

---

Guess what, if E.Coli can learn a new skill (a new function) that enables them to choose what to eat and to spit out what taste yucky, then I would be really impressed. May they also evolve taste bud and a smart brain to support that new skill/function.

---

Er... You do realise don't you, that if we were to observe that in a lab, it would completely blow the Theory of Evolution out of the water?

quote:

---

May be I ought to tell you to mind your own business.

---

Maybe not. It might sound a bit hypocritical coming from someone who is so keen to delve into other members personal details. My emphasis.In summary, you have provided no evidence that the 2nd LoT is even relevant to evolution. You haven't even made an argument. If this conversation is to have any value, you need to at least provide a detailed description of how the 2nd law effects evolution. Otherwise you're just whistling in the dark.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi pcver,Percy is correct, you provide little of substance to respond to, but I'll give it a go.

quote:

---

I'm fairly close to software engineering.
I'm sure those E.coli mutations are of data-related change, not function-related.

---

Jeez, what is it with engineers and programmers?If you think that you can just take your computing expertise and apply it straight to biology, you are very wrong. Evolution is not computing. The two have little in common.If you really want to understand what is being said here, you need to take off your computer scientist's hat and try and approach the biology on its own terms.The point about Lenski's E.coli is that they demonstrated the ability to evolve a new trait, despite creationist protestations about the supposed impossibility of such a feat. They did exactly what you have been claiming was impossible. If you are honestly approaching the evidence, as you claim you are, then you ought to admit that this is the case.

quote:

---

I'm sure natural selection is only a filtering process that is useless for evolution of new species.

---

Wow. You contradicted yourself within a single sentence. Nice.Suffice to say that whilst "filtering process" is not the best description of natural selection, it does make it very far from being "useless". NS sorts the mutational wheat from the chaff, leaving the overall process of evolution very far from random.

quote:

---

It needs not be speculation at all. You can start with E.coli, a highly mutational bacteria that took approximately 20 years to achieve a two-gene mutations, (that allow some to eat citrate).
I'm sure the verdict will be that an astronomical number of mutations will be needed to explain life on earth today. It is impossible.

---

And I think it's just fine.See how useless uniformed opinion is? The only way that this line of reasoning is going to be fruitful is if you get up off your ass and put in the necessary effort to actually research the subject and write your program. Speculating about it is merely mental masturbation.You don't get to declare something impossible by mulling a few half-baked ideas around in your head. You have to actually put in some effort. Evolution is supported by countless lines of evidence in multiple fields of scientific study. It has passed rigorous tests and has never been contradicted by observation. You don't get to declare it impossible just because you made a couple of uninformed guesstimates on the back of an envelope. Sorry.

quote:

---

You're just saying that. That'd never happen in any case.

---

I'm not just saying it. If a simple organism like E.coli were to develop a complex brain capable of higher function within the scope of a short-term lab experiment, it would turn the ToE upside-down.It's never happened. Know why? Because the ToE is correct. That also explains why other evolution-busting observations, such as Haldane's Cambrian rabbits, have never been observed; they're not there. They're not there because the ToE is correct. Don't you think that, if this were not the case, then over the past 150 years some contradictory evidence would have surfaced?

quote:

---

I don't believe you at all -- If the unthinkable happens, then evolutionists will be more than eager to adjust the theory to latch onto the new finding and claim a win for evolution.

---

Conspiracy theory time is it? Yay! Tinfoil hats all round!Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Percy,

quote:

---

There's no way to know precisely what "I'm fairly close to software engineering" means concerning Pcver's job description, but if he were an engineer or a programmer he would have said so. I think he means he works with software engineers but is not one himself.

---

Yeah, I agree. It's also highly reminiscent of a comment made a while ago by AlphaOmega Kid, who said "I work in a scientific field" (or words to that effect). That could mean almost anything. I believe he runs an engineering company.I guess the reason why so many engineers and programmers are open to design-based explanations is just a case of every problem looking like a nail when all you've got is a hammer.What makes them think that they can kid others into believing they're actual bona fide scientists though is beyond me. A scientist is not an easy person to imitate; sooner or later they'll get called out on their lack of expertise.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade