[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:55:37 +0000 (GMT)

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 
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 
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 

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 


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.


      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: