Now we hit upon one of my favorite subjects, evolution. I have no trouble believing in the evolution of the airplane, train, integrated circuits, etc. After all, intelligent people worked on those things to make them what they are. However, I just cannot see how something that is not living can arrange itself randomly into a complicated living creature like a cell. There just is not enough time in the universe for that to happen and sustain itself. Besides, in all things that happen, the random path is always from order to disorder. I challenge anyone to show me an example where order comes from disorder. Randomly, there are too many ways to go wrong and very few ways to go right. So the mechanism for evolution is missing and the theory should be discarded. They say that some people had a hard time disputing Darwin during his time. They tried to do it with religious arguments and ridiculous pontification. It would have been so much more effective to dismiss all the religious arguments, and let the theory fall on its inability to show how order or higher order comes from chaos or simple order. Natural selection? All that means is that the weeds are going to take over your garden unless you pull them. Awaiting your comments.

I'm pretty much in agreement, although I can see the case for microevolutionary or incremental changes, in which an external trigger can cause a small change over time. For example, it seems reasonable to me that in a population of rabbits, predators could serve to weed out the slower rabbits, allowing the faster ones to survive and produce progeny with this trait.

On the other hand, it's difficult for me to fathom how a living cell, with its extremely complex DNA mechanism for replicating itself, could just spring into existence from a soup of chemical nutrients, even over the course of one or two billion (thousand million) years. I would be less amazed to see a pile of aircraft parts assemble itself into a working 787 airliner.

So while I can accept the possibility of small evolutionary changes to some existing form of life, I have a hard time conceding existential evolutionary changes, in which chemicals become life. I'm not very religious, but the fact of life existing on this planet, which happens to be at just the right distance from the sun for water to remain mostly in its liquid state seems to be more than random chance to me.

 

Cosmologists to the contrary, it's just as hard to imagine a vacuum state (their definition) into which a point of energy appears - and just happens to contain all the energy now in the observable universe, plus all the mass - in the equivalent form of yet more energy.

If that's not bothersome, the inflationary period in which everything had to move lots faster than light is just a bit off-putting.

At least we have solid evidence for incremental evolution.

 

Yes, what about a unicellar being evolving? When or where did/does that happen?

The evolution on unicellular level happened when life began on earth. I believe we are the result of evolution of simple unicellular beings into multicellular ones. (Any one here who believes in Adam and eve story?)

Chemical reaction products achive that higher stability by changing into a simpler state of order.

This is why I wanted to know what you mean by order. So that a meaning of 'simpler order' and disorder be clear to me. What is more simpler order between an octagonal ring or a hexagonal ring? Which one is simpler between an unlimited number of carbon compounds (not ordered) or a chain formed by these?(polythene).
Chemical reaction are only concerned about stability. The conditions in which they happen decides whether they from an ordered product or an unordered one.

Order means a condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group.

You wanted an example showing order coming from disorder.
The formation of polythene and many other changes most noteworthy of which can be found in evolution of life hint towards the same.

Yes, always as predetermined by its molecular structure and the energy it contains. That never changes, always the same. No chance for a different way of happening that evolutions say is needed, is there?

I failed to get your point here. With the water to ice conversion i simply intended to show you another example where a lower entropy is achieved by a system. Entropy is the measure of disorderliness of a system. Another example is discharging of heat from a fluid(water) in a condenser. The water reaches a state of lower entropy.

What is m/c? Please define your acronyms at least once.

Apologies, I never knew the usage of term is limited to my region(field?).
M/C means Machine

I chose to use a wider term machine as it can thus include a whole range of artificial/man-made entities.

How are large numbers of nano m/c's (whatever they are) going to do that randomly when order never comes from chaos. How are non-sentient unthinking things going to get together and plan to be more complex? Something like that did not happen and could not happen with respect to life on Earth.

Nano level machines forming a system is somewhat similar to simple chemical compounds converting into an organic matter, then converting into a system which eventually evolved into a human.
Every phenomenon occurs to achieve stability. Be it chemical or physical. I believe we are the result of one such long process. A 'plan' is not what is required. A couple of protozoa never planned to bring Homo sapiens on earth.

 

Mark44,

I'm pretty much in agreement, although I can see the case for microevolutionary or incremental changes, in which an external trigger can cause a small change over time. For example, it seems reasonable to me that in a population of rabbits, predators could serve to weed out the slower rabbits, allowing the faster ones to survive and produce progeny with this trait.

Yes, there seems to be an ability in every kind of creature family to adapt and change to a finite degree. I would not call those changes evolution. These changes can be among other things, size, color, temperament, thickness of coat, length of tail, and limited changes in shape. Those changes are not radical either. A good example is the dog family. They all have a keen sense of smell, good lungs, strong jaws and teeth, and good hearing. Now note how many canine breeds there are now and more on the way. But no matter how much time passes, it is hard to imagine going from a dog to a donkey because of the innate limit to change.

On the other hand, it's difficult for me to fathom how a living cell, with its extremely complex DNA mechanism for replicating itself, could just spring into existence from a soup of chemical nutrients, even over the course of one or two billion (thousand million) years. I would be less amazed to see a pile of aircraft parts assemble itself into a working 787 airliner.

Right on. A cell or virus is the smallest and least complicated form of life. Yet even those could not have been built over eons because everything included within has to exist and work correctly for it to live and propagate. That means it has to come into existence fast and ready. That is not conducive to believing in evolution.

So while I can accept the possibility of small evolutionary changes to some existing form of life, I have a hard time conceding existential evolutionary changes, in which chemicals become life. I'm not very religious, but the fact of life existing on this planet, which happens to be at just the right distance from the sun for water to remain mostly in its liquid state seems to be more than random chance to me.

You don't have to be religious to disbelieve evolution. Religion means subscribing to doctrine, dogma, advocacy of worship, sometimes proselytizing, and gathering together to proclaim your faith. You can still believe that a creator was a first cause. That is not a religious viewpoint. It is a theistic viewpoint, and a valid argument to explain what cannot otherwise be explained. Ratch

 

beenthere,

At least we have solid evidence for incremental evolution.

What is the difference between incremental evolution and plain old evolution. What is the evidence and how is it interpreted? Ratch

 

Stephen Gould's study of the evolution of snails might illustrate in incremental evolution, where small changes can be discerned. Most evolution is more coarsely represented, like the record we have of eohippus into the modern horse. It is not an official term, by any means

Evolution is evolution. The step from no life to unicellular life is very hard to imagine, though. There are enough records of organisms changing over time that the concept is extremely convincing.

 

recca02,

The evolution on unicellular level happened when life began on earth. I believe we are the result of evolution of simple unicellular beings into multicellular ones. (Any one here who believes in Adam and eve story?)

How did the first single cell develop? Knowing that randomness never produces order, how did that first cell become a system of cells?

This is why I wanted to know what you mean by order. So that a meaning of 'simpler order' and disorder be clear to me. What is more simpler order between an octagonal ring or a hexagonal ring? Which one is simpler between an unlimited number of carbon compounds (not ordered) or a chain formed by these?(polythene).
Chemical reaction are only concerned about stability. The conditions in which they happen decides whether they from an ordered product or an unordered one.

I can see your confusion. My meaning of order in this case is from a operational system or organization point of view, not from a thermodynamics perspective. What I would like to hear from you is an explanation of how a simple low order of collection organic chemicals, and a source of energy in the form of heat, lighting, or anything else you can name, can change into a high order of arrangement like a cell. Then change to a still higher order of a multicell organ. Then change to an even higher order of a multiorgan animal. In other words, what I would like to see explained is system organization from randomness.

You wanted an example showing order coming from disorder.
The formation of polythene and many other changes most noteworthy of which can be found in evolution of life hint towards the same.

Polythene, the British variant of the word polyethlene, is a man made product produced by directed manufacturing, not randomness. Chains and rings of carbon atoms do not show randomness. They happen when energy and external conditions act on certain chemicals according to mustly understood chemical laws.

I failed to get your point here. With the water to ice conversion i simply intended to show you another example where a lower entropy is achieved by a system. Entropy is the measure of disorderliness of a system. Another example is discharging of heat from a fluid(water) in a condenser. The water reaches a state of lower entropy.

My fault. I should have emphasized better the concept of system organization order.

Nano level machines forming a system is somewhat similar to simple chemical compounds converting into an organic matter, then converting into a system which eventually evolved into a human.
Every phenomenon occurs to achieve stability. Be it chemical or physical. I believe we are the result of one such long process. A 'plan' is not what is required. A couple of protozoa never planned to bring Homo sapiens on earth.

Because nanomachines are manufactured and designed, they will only do what they are built to do. A directed influence is required for anything to happen. That is why I agree with you that protozoa never brought us to existence on Earth. Ratch

 

beenthere,

Stephen Gould's study of the evolution of snails might illustrate in incremental evolution, where small changes can be discerned. Most evolution is more coarsely represented, like the record we have of eohippus into the modern horse. It is not an official term, by any means

I am not familiar with the snail study, but I would guess that is normal variation within a family of gastropods. I have heard of certain displays of the horse evolution being pulled from museums because of poor scholarship, fraud or misinterpretation. I did a quick check and found this. http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm#informed

Evolution is evolution. The step from no life to unicellular life is very hard to imagine, though. There are enough records of organisms changing over time that the concept is extremely convincing.

Evolution can be made to sound plausible, but I don't think the fossil evidence they dig up stands up to acute scrutiny. Ratch

 

I am not an atheist or an agnostic. I subscribe to a variant of creationism. Which variant is not relevant to this discussion. Let's just say I give the Divine more credit than I perceive a lot of other folk do. Which is more miraculous: pulling a phylum out of your hat in the morning of the fifth day, or setting up the universe from the get-go in a way for said phylum to pull itself out of its own hat?

I challenge anyone to show me an example where order comes from disorder.

Try an internet search on the "Miller-Urey experiment."

 

thingmaker3,

Try an internet search on the "Miller-Urey experiment."

I did. It appears they showed that some of the "building blocks" of life could form in what they think were the conditions on Earth long ago. That is still a very long way from getting it all together and running as life.

Why not try something simpler. Can anyone name a norishing edible product for a mammal that can be manufactured from substances that never were living. That disqualifies petroleum products, of course. Ratch

 

It appears they showed that some of the "building blocks" of life could form in what they think were the conditions on Earth long ago. That is still a very long way from getting it all together and running as life.

You didn't ask for proof of getting it all together and running as life. You asked for an example where order comes from disorder. I gave you one. The polite response would have been "thank you."

Here's another one: http://www.im.microbios.org/0801/0801063.pdf

Ammonium cyanide does count as a substance that never was living, does it not? Amino acids do count as edible nutrient for mammals, yes?

 

thingmaker3,

You didn't ask for proof of getting it all together and running as life. You asked for an example where order comes from disorder. I gave you one. The polite response would have been "thank you."

No thanks are in order yet. I corrected and clarified my definition of order in post #7 as an operational system or organization point of view. Pointing out chemical reaction products do not qualify as an example because they are cut and dried processes that occur and end with no system organization follow on. The same could be said of carbon being turned into diamond.

Ammonium cyanide does count as a substance that never was living, does it not? Amino acids do count as edible nutrient for mammals, yes?

Yes, it sure does.

Not sure about any amino acid being edible in its raw form. Especially adenine. Probably would not be very nutritious either. I was thinking about what I heard the Germans did in WWII. I believe they made ersatz butter from petroleum somehow. Probably was just an oily paste with no nutritional value. Ratch

 

Fine. Change your definitions as we go along. I thought you might actually be interested in a dialog this time. I was mistaken. Refute this post and let's end this, yet another useless thread.

 

thingmaker3,

Fine. Change your definitions as we go along. I thought you might actually be interested in a dialog this time. I was mistaken. Refute this post and let's end this, yet another useless thread.

I only made one correctional change for a poorly defined definition. I think we pretty much agree on the underpinning of evolution so there is not much to discuss. Ratch