[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: Martin Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:25:35 -0500
Paul D,
Two things. (1) The Doolittle evidence that was faulty formed the
core of the refutation of Behe. (2) Thaxton, Bradley and Olson's
work didn't use a Gibb's Free Energy factor based on closed systems,
but explicitly calculated them for an open system. THAT was what took
three Ph.D.s several years to correctly analyze and finally publish.
The nails in the respective coffins are real.
Like I said, Tom Sullivan never read the book when he trashed it on
Amazon. If you look at ALL the book reviews Tom Sullivan writes, 85%
of them are the exact same review: cookie-cutter verbatim attacks on
Intelligent Design ("ID-iocy" as he calls it). The critics ASSUME the
analysis is based on closed systems (because a lot of creationist
argues from entropy appear to leverage that approach), but THIS book
took great pains to avoid that easily-criticized detour.
Back to your Wiki citation.... In normal scientific exchange within
a journal, counter-rebuttals are mandated by editorial policy where a
criticized position is allowed to reply. The only exception to this
applies to creationists and intelligent design proponents. There
won't be any invitation to respond: it's a one-way street (how NOT in
keeping with the open inquiry and exchange of views that science
purports to support). The Sternberg case makes clear what happens
should an editor veer from this blackballing policy -- it was the
intent of the Smithsonian to make an example of Sternberg. Had
Sternberg been an actual employee of the Smithsonian instead of the
NIH, the case would have gone to court (because the jurisdictional
issue would have been secured) and the Smithsonian would have lost a
discrimination lawsuit on the spot. Because of the jurisdictional
conflict, they were spared public embarrassment over their
mistreatment of Sternberg.
Martin
On Sep 22, 2007, at 7:55 AM, Paul Deema wrote:
Martin S
I thank you for a well considered and comprehensive response. I do
appreciate your patience with someone who lacks your understanding.
I am essentially in agreement with the thoughts you express in your
first paragraph, taking your statements at face value. And as I've
admitted many times I think, I am unable to challenge your
statements. (I did mention I think that that article defeated me).
Your second paragraph defines your view of my position. Apparently
my meaning was not clear. I would never deny a plaintiff the right
of reply. My point is that if he is correct, the world being what
it is, there will be those who will attest to this correctness.
Unfortunately, the world being what it is, many of those who will
agree are often lax in their assessment of his correctness and
will be less willing to condemn a fellow traveller. This occurs on
each side of the dividing line between (for want of better words)
creationists and evolutionists, however there are also honest and
diligent people in the world, and these will give an honest
appraisal. It was one of these I was hoping you might have
supplied. You must admit if you're honest, that if you can find no
one on the opposing team to support your position -- given that
there are honest people in the world -- then your position is
distinctly doubtful. (Again in hope I ask -- anyone -- why can I
find no secular support for the word of a very qualified A E Wilder-
Smith?). But now to the nitty gritty of this paragraph, I am not
siding with Doolittle. I don't know what he said. I am not
knowledgeable of the experiment. I was defeated by this article --
it concerns highly technical descriptions involving terms and
expressions of which I am wholly ignorant. If things are indeed as
you have reported, then he surely appears to have erred. My
difficulty with M Behe's mouse trap is engendered by information
gained from a science channel doco -- Horizon perhaps, Discovery
Channel? -- which explored another scientist's (sorry -- like
everything else, my memory doesn't serve me well) assessment of his
principal thesis of irreducible complexity. I've just checked Wiki
on the subject and find the article describes my thoughts pretty
well. Here is an excerpt -
Despite being discredited in the Dover trial where the court found
in its ruling that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible
complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and
has been rejected by the scientific community at large",[8]
irreducible complexity has nevertheless remained a popular argument
among advocates of intelligent design and other creationists.
Next paragraph ... '"The Mystery of Life's Origin," ... requires
the reader to have a college-level understanding of physical
chemistry to understand its argument.' Well you just know what my
defence is going to be here don't you? I wish it were not so but it
would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. I did look at Gibbs and
his free energy though. Sadly, he is in the same boat, but here we
come to what I see as the crux of the matter. Again Wiki says -
In thermodynamics, the Gibbs free energy (IUPAC recommended name:
Gibbs energy or Gibbs function) is a thermodynamic potential which
measures the "useful" or process-initiating work obtainable from an
isothermal, isobaric thermodynamic system. Technically, the Gibbs
free energy is the maximum amount of non-expansion work which can
be extracted from a closed system, and this maximum can be attained
only in a completely reversible process
The crucial point here, and I have seen many words on this subject,
is 'closed system'. If I may try an analogy here? You have a car in
good running order, a full fuel tank and a wide road in excellent
repair which stretches out ahead of you to infinity. You get in and
start driving and after a while -- a good while -- the engine
sputters and dies. You've extracted all the energy from the system,
you can go no further. This is a closed system. Now, second
scenario, just like the first, except there is a refuelling station
every 300 km. You won't get to the end of the road, but you will
get one hell of a lot further. Still a closed system -- there are
no repair shops to replace your worn out tires/engine/transmission,
but to reiterate, you will get one hell of a lot further.
Shifting to the real world, it is still closed, the Sun will one
day get to the bottom of the nuclear conversion process and no more
energy will be forthcoming. Before that happens of course we will
all be extinct, from virus to human and possible descendants, due
to changes in the Sun. But that is still ahead of us as far as the
origin is behind us. In this period, incredible energy has arrived
and will continue to arrive. So long as this is so, plants will
continue to make carbohydrates and animals will continue to convert
this to protein. Everywhere entropy tends to increase, but locally,
while energy is available to power it, entropy is reduced. I see no
reason why this should not apply to abiogenesis as it does to
growth and evolution.
Now to origins of life. I'll take your word for it that an
oxidising atmosphere precludes abiogenesis. And I'll take your word
for it -- though you didn't give it -- that a reducing atmosphere
(my choice of scenarios) will -- because of UV light -- destroy
life or incipient life, This acceptance however is contingent upon
life beginning in the atmosphere. My understanding is that this is
not presumed. Life began in water, possibly under rocks, possibly
in murky deep hot springs. Something like the deep ocean volcanic
vent eco systems seems likely.
Your last paragraph contains a couple of references which are new
to me. Principally the idea of an oxygen rich atmosphere from the
beginning. I've not come across that previously -- I've always
understood that it was mostly carbon dioxide and that oxygen in
bulk resulted from small organisms removing the carbon from the CO2
and precipitating it as limestone. I'll have to look at that later.
In the meantime -- it's late and I'm hungry. I've been out to a
gemstone exhibition and bought the first two of what I hope will
grow into a collection. An oval smokey quartz and a round very nice
amethyst -- the latter being my favourite.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Martin G. Selbrede <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 21 September, 2007 4:20:16 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Paul Deema wrote:
What I found was that the refutation was written by M Behe.
Essentially, it's simply him stating that what he had said
originally was correct.
No, Paul, it is not reassertion. It is appeal to the paper that
Doolittle misquotes. Behe snagged these guys on propagating an
error (even the misspelling of plasminogen is propagated along with
the error) -- they misrepresented the results of knocking out parts
of the genetic code of the mouse, declaring them to be benign. But
if the females invariably die in pregnancy (as the actual paper
stated), how do you send those genes to the next generation? There
can be no line of descent: nature can't select what isn't there.
Further, let me understand what you seem to be saying. Behe wrote
Article X. Doolittle and others rebut Behe. But Behe is disallowed
a counter-rebuttal -- you will not accept a counter-rebuttal from
the person who was rebutted. You want the rebuttal of Doolittle to
come from someone other than Behe. Behe is disqualified as a
defender of his own position against clearly falsified criticisms
against it. I'm unaware of this new gag rule you think should be
imposed. If you say, "Well, there were three critics," that's
untrue, because the other two quoted Doolittle unthinkingly, even
failing to correct the spelling of plasminogen. You got Doolittle,
who misquoted the research on the mouse, and several others who
repeated Doolittle's error. This is not a "consensus of experts,"
it's a scientific embarrassment. How, precisely, is it then fair
game to say any counter-rebuttal by Behe is disallowed? Behe is
simply right: Doolittle misquoted the paper. Doolittle is appealed
to under the "ad verecundiam" fallacy (erroneous appeal to
authority). Doolittle simply didn't read the paper that he was
quoting very carefully. He was flippant, and erred. Behe read the
paper. It's letter simple. For you to side with the contingent
that is propagating nonsensical error about what happens to the
mice under the given circumstance is beyond my ability to
comprehend. This is really a simple question: did the mice in the
experiment die? Yes they did. Doolittle said they didn't. The
experimenters have mouse corpses on their hands. Do you believe the
experimenters peer-reviewed journal article, or Doolittle's gross
misquotation of it? For someone who talks about the value of
experimental science and confirmed results, you're standing on the
wrong side of the fence on this one, Paul.
As to abiogenesis, one of the better go-to sources on this is the
1984 book, "The Mystery of Life's Origin," written by three
scientists each with earned Ph.D.s (Thaxton and Olsons are in
chemistry, while Bradley's is in mechanical engineering and
physical processes). The book requires the reader to have a college-
level understanding of physical chemistry to understand its
argument. It is rife with chemical reactions expressed in terms of
the Gibbs Free Energy that enables the reaction to go forward.
There is an energy threshold below which a reaction CAN NOT GO
FORWARD. If these energy barriers exist in the alleged chain to get
to any critical "life molecules," their natural synthesis is
rendered impossible. These are issues in Physical Chemistry, and
rotate around one issue: Gibbs Free Energy. If you don't have
enough, you're dead in the water. Or, rather, you're non-living in
the water. You don't have a prebiotic soup but an abiotic soup. I
gather from the Amazon reviews that nobody (friend or foe) grasped
the key challenge this book puts forth. It was compelling enough
for Dean Kenyon, chairman of the biology department at the
Universsity of California at San Francisco, to write the foreword
to the volume. But as I said, the commentators didn't even get it.
When Thaxton, Bradley and Olson say that you can't get there from
here, they don't merely assert it, they prove it with the laws of
chemical reactions. This is an open and shut case. The book is
available "used" on Amazon. Note the idiotic review on Amazon by
Tom Sullivan, who didn't even read the book (he thinks it's a film
he's reviewing! What a meatball! No critique of the book that
fails to engage its fundamental discussion of Gibbs Free Energy has
any value, since THAT is the central fatal point being made
throughout its chapters.)
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Lifes-Origin-Reassessing-Theories/dp/
0802224466/ref=sr_1_1/002-9877777-4121665?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190390175&sr=1-1
If that weren't bad enough, even the advocates of abiogenesis teach
that the Earth had to have a reducing atmosphere for their alleged
phenomenon to get off the ground. But geologists continue to
unearth rock layers dated (by evolutionary geologists) to the
Archaean system back to the Azoic era that show the Earth's
atmosphere was a fully oxidizing atmosphere well before life was
alleged to begin. Earth with an oxidizing atmosphere is admitted on
all sides to be the death knell for abiogenesis. Guess what: you
can hear that bell ring -- unless, of course, you've got your
fingers planted deep into your ears.
Martin
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
storage. Get it now.
Other related posts:
