*In my best Robert DeNiro voice* You, you're good you. You're good.

You wouldn't be amazed at how many times I see the same errors of logic advocated by people who claim to be champions of logical thinking, because you've obviously encountered the same thing a thousand times before. Whether or not you agree with the scientific implications of ID theory or not doesn't factor into the question at all. Much like my favorite modern day philosopher/theologian, I accept the foundational principles behind ID theory, but even if I didn't, logical thinking is the one thing I know of that cannot be put up for debate, and your article is perhaps the best I have ever encountered for exposing the fallacies of those who try to do so, conciously or unconciously, every single day.

You wasted half of your entry on a non-argument. You said, "Whenever I was taught about evolution, I was told (1) natural selection fully explains biological complexity, and thus (2) there is thus no creator, or at least no need for a creator." You mischaracterization of the argument--science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, have nothing to say about the existence of God, or any other putative Creator. It is, as you say, a philosophical question. Evolutionary biology is concerned with the origin of *diversity* and not the origin of *life*. Scientists, like any other people, can offer personal opinions on the matter. There are atheists, agnostics, and devout Christians who accept the idea of common descent, and you might get differing opinions from each group regarding the origin of life.

JSW,

You said, "Whenever I was taught about evolution, I was told (1) natural selection fully explains biological complexity, and thus (2) there is thus no creator, or at least no need for a creator."

Recall I am addressing it as taught.

You seem to think the "creator" is only a question of the origin of life. Given the comments below, I can understand that confusion. But in the bible, the "creator" creates species as well, and it is that action being referred to here.

You mischaracterization of the argument--science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, have nothing to say about the existence of God, or any other putative Creator. It is, as you say, a philosophical question.

In one breath, you say I'm "mischaracterizing" the arugment, in the next, you agree with me. Of course it's a philosophical question -- that's my entire point. I'm talking about how evolution has been presented in the classroom, in my experience. I am saying, in my experience, it was presented to me as though it had something to do with the question of God's existence and actions. I'm not sure how you can disagree, other than try to argue, somehow, my experience was atypical.

Evolutionary biology is concerned with the origin of *diversity* and not the origin of *life*.

Technically, yes, you're right: abiogenesis is a bit outside (though relevant to) the narrow field of evolutionary biology; evolution is more a question of diversity than origins. I muddied the waters a bit by saying at one point "origin of life" rather than, as Darwin put it, "origin of the species." But, in my experience, they often are presented in close proximity in science classes, and often subject to the same questions about random chance versus a creator.

There are atheists, agnostics, and devout Christians who accept the idea of common descent, and you might get differing opinions from each group regarding the origin of life.

I agree. But, again, I'm telling you how it was presented to me. In an anthropology class, for example, I vividly remember my professor teaching that Darwin's theories explained variation, and that mooted discussion about God's role in creation.

Of course there are Christians who accept the idea of common descent. (And many ID'ers who do too.) You and I agree: the whole discussion should be unbundled from theological/philosophical questions as much as possible.*

I graduated high school in 1960, so things may have changed. I took biology in 11th or 12th grade, I can't remember which. They taught a little evolution back then. I don't remember any implication that this provided proof against the existence of a creator. In my own mind, I realized that it removed one of the reasons to believe in the "Old Testament" God, but that's all.

Interesting that you say that. After all, I said it was taught as though it implied there at least "no need for a creator". Your final statement seems to agree.

Also not sure how the "OT God" (as you put it), in specific, is relevant? Yes, can understand how it might disagree with a young-earth, seven-day creationist reading of it, but against any interpretation? I just don't see it.

You are right that whoever taught you evolution in that manner was being hypocritical.

I, personally, was not taught it in that light. God was not mentioned at all, either in a positive or negative sense.

I don't believe Darwin could have had any idea of the philosophical consequences that would come about as a result of the acceptance of evolutionary theory.

Actually, I think that's not true at all. The narrative we've generally been told is that the evidence for evolution reluctantly convinced Darwin to eschew belief in God and become a materialist.

Yet I've seen rather convincing evidence from Darwin's journals that he was initially a materialist, and knew it, and was engaged in a rather deliberate effort to hide his materialistic assumptions.

Interesting article... I understand what you are saying - and I like your statement:

"When the science, we think, disproves God, philosophy is well and good to bring into the picture! But when science might prove God, we suddenly decide: "Whoops! Can't have any of that in here!"

So true.

So – you are saying that scientists should separate science that you can "test" with the scientific method from philosophy that cannot be tested - and perhaps that is true. But if that is the case, then scientists may as well forget discovering our origins - ever. Because the evolution of life (the actual random assembly of amino acids into complex proteins that randomly formed the first DNA strand - the most complex molecule known to man) CANNOT be tested. So we are left with philosophy - either evolutionary or intelligent design. So either scientists give up and accept that they have to deal with philosophy or relent to the philosophers.

I think they should apply the same "dotted line" techniques they do with evolutionary theory to the origin of life. If they followed their own logic based on sheer probability, they would draw a much shorter dotted line to creation than to random evolution.

They have to remember to apply probability (which they apply when it suits them): the odds of a structure with 100 parts randomly assembling into a specific functional structure are 1 in 1X10^111. Considering that there may be only 1X10^81 atoms in the entire known universe, there is not enough time for this to happen in 14 billion years - or atoms in the universe, let alone our puny oceans - especially when you consider that the simplest single celled life forms have thousands of parts that have to all be present and assembled correctly for life. Events with similar probability had to have happened several trillion times to reach the "evolution" of human beings.

You cannot test either evolution or creation by any method! It boils down to faith - in randomness (nothing) or God (something). This is why so many choose faith in God – rather than nothing.

PS: I really like what Troy posted on June 14th.

ID is an easy one.

Formulate a question like "If you had to choose between a stapler and a plate of broccoli, would you choose to eat the stapler?" Let's say the odds are tiny that a person would say "Yes". Now go and ask 10 people. Is it possible that one of the people might say "Yes"? Of course! You may have found the only human who would eat the stapler. Now forget about this crazy person, and go ask a billion other people. Chances are, they'll all say "No". But as we saw, there's still a possibility that someone might answer "Yes". Therefore, small odds do not require another answer. 0.0000001% is mathematically similar to 99%, in that neither is equal to 0%. The question thus implies that intelligent design is more likely (has higher odds) than the random generation of life-suitable amino acids. The amino acid randomness might be possible to calculate (because we know the structure of amino acids and the chemical reactions which produce them), but the intelligent design one is not (since the parameters are unknown). Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate (randAminoAcids < randID).

To finish the above...
It is not possible to evaluate ("Is possibility of random life greater or less than possibility of intelligent design?").

"Yes",

It sounds like, as with your previous comment, you haven't even taken the time to read and think about the post above. Please attempt to do so henceforth, before leaving comments, as it wastes everyones' time.

Please note that I define "design" as the opposite of "random chance". If a particular amino acid is found to exist, and we calculate the odds it arose by chance (C), then what, assuming we trust our calculation, are the odds it arose by not-chance?

They are simply 1 - C.

You assert no such thing can be known. But to the contrary, when you calculate the odds of something happening by chance, you are simulataneously calculating also the odds of it happening by not-chance, or intent.

Tim, Tim, Tim,

If I asked you, "Did you build your car or receive it as a gift?", is it possible that you might say "neither"?

The possibility of random chance and of intelligent design are disjoint. The lack of one does not imply the other. For example, it is neither by random chance nor by intelligent design that 2+2=4 or that HCl + NaOH = H2O + NaCl.

Therefore, it is not possible to say that Pi = 1 - Pc.

Tim, Tim, Tim,

When backed into a corner, condescend. :-)

It's no replacement for logic or evidence (see below), but, well, in a pinch, it's the best we can muster.

If I asked you, "Did you build your car or receive it as a gift?", is it possible that you might say "neither"?

Another strategy to adopt is to try to win an argument by redefining words unusually, or distract from their obvious meanings. As a refresher, right from ol' Miriam-Webster:

chance - the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings

Look, I've defined "design" as the opposite of "chance" -- indeed, that is what chance itself means: things which do not come about from intention or purpose. If you think there's a third alternative you're welcomed to name it, or if you think I'm playing fast and loose by simply noting what these words actually mean, you're more than welcomed to address that.

Instead, you introduce an inapt analogy, one which is clearly inapt because I can name third and fourth alternatives: you have stolen the car, or purchased it. But can you do the same with "chance" and "not chance"? No. You are clearly trying to distract yourself from the obvious, and wandering off into the land of illogic, where the law of the excluded middle doesn't hold.

But logic must be sacrificed so that belief may persist...

The possibility of random chance and of intelligent design are disjoint...

If I set up a problem where a ball will either be put into one urn or another, but not both, and not neither, then we know the odds of a ball ending up in either always add up to one.

But in order for you to show this analogy doesn't hold, you'd have to show there are more than two urns ("design and chance") here, or that the ball (an event) can end up having both descriptors or neither. So far, you've only attempted proof-by-assertion -- chance and design are disjoint, we must believe, because you say they are, repeatedly. You do not suggest a third alternative, nor show how an atomic event could be due to both chance and design or neither.

Sorry, that won't do here.

For example, it is neither by random chance nor by intelligent design that 2+2=4...

2 + 2 = 4 because we have defined "4" to be the symbol representing X X X X units. You're not even in the same problem space anymore, here, as you're not even talking about events, much less testable ones for which a probability can be arguably computed. Pretty desparate move.

Second, even so: how are you able to conclusively assert that the designation of X X X X units is not "4" is not by design? It rather seems we've defined it as being so, and we were, last I checked, intelligent entities.

Look, I think what you're really trying to do here is talk about the origins of logic itself. We hold certain things to be true -- such as the law of the excluded middle (well, some of us do, anyway) and the rules of logic (and mathematics, by extension). These things are fundamental to the functioning of this (or, I suspect, any) universe, or at least to our talking about it.

And you're doing something similar when you attempt to assert the laws of chemistry (i.e. physics) weren't designed or by chance, though this example is less stupid than the other, as it is at least talking about testable events again.

But note: to assert, in either case, that they were or weren't (or both or neither, if that somehow makes sense to your brain) designed or by chance is simply to assume the conclusion you're trying to prove. You're begging the question, arguing in a circle, assuming your own desired outcome in order to "prove" it -- a fallacy you've already shown you have some trouble understanding and correctly detecting.

You apparently want to prove some particular event is neither due to design or chance, so, as a neat step on the way there, you assume the entire systems of laws which determined that event were also neither by design or chance.

Oh yes, quite impressive.

But then, again, remember that my underlying thesis is that many opponents of ID are deeply illogical. You're not doing much here to undermine that case. You were simply parroting arguments you'd been told, and were apparently completely caught off guard when you found they didn't apply. Rather than admit the point, logic and rationality itself must die a painful death (painful for those of us who have to watch it being tortured on the way out).

And the funny thing is, there are much better rejoinders to what I'm saying here, but you're not even seeing them. Nor will you, if you keep using the kind of self-deluding mental tricks you seem to be resorting to here.

Tim,

You apparently want to prove some particular event is neither due to design or chance, so, as a neat step on the way there, you assume the entire systems of laws which determined that event were also neither by design or chance.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Otherwise, either:
a.) Mathematical logic randomly appeared (in which case it's possible for 2+2=5 in another universe), or
b.) Mathematical logic was designed by some intelligent being (in which the creator must have appeared randomly)

Logic is independent of chance or design; it simply exists. If you put three pencils on an empty table, one by one, you will always end up seeing three pencils (1+1+1 = 1 * 3 = 3).

This is nothing as sophisticated as evolution or intelligent design. It also does not simply serve as a "way out" of your equation.

And no, I'm not repeating anything I've ever heard. In fact, many people may support ID, but the idea was originated by a person. Logic was not. To conveniently throw out the law of causality by suggesting the existence of an intelligent creator which itself was never created, and then to further suggest that a person using logic is simply repeating supposedly flawed arguments, goes to show who's parroting things they've heard.

Tim said: You apparently want to prove some particular event is neither due to design or chance, so, as a neat step on the way there, you assume the entire systems of laws which determined that event were also neither by design or chance.

"Yes" said: That's exactly what I'm saying.

Well, then you're clearly using "circular reasoning" or "begging the question". Believing your desired conclusion doesn't insulate you from having committed a logical fallacy by including it among the assumptions which allegedly "prove" it. No, not in the slightest: Most people who beg the question heartily believe the conclusion they are attempting to prove: that's why they're blind to their own illogic.

Looking at the new arguments you've introduced, if I may try to paraphrase this, and cut it down a bit, we have:

Either:
(1) L arose by neither chance nor design, OR
(2) L arose by chance, OR
(3) L arose by design

(Where L is either Logic or Laws, depending on whether you're willing to admit your chemistry example was clearly cooked.)

Regarding the first alternative: I have repeatedly pointed out to you that "design" and "chance" are defined as opposites, and claimed that events must be due to either, and suggested how you might attempt to undermine such an argument.

Yet you again ignore my response, and simply restate your thesis yet again, as though I had not answered that assertion before (it is just a restatement of "chance and design are disjoint" -- see my answer to that assertion) or as though you could make it so by repeating it yet again.

No: Please read the rules for comments (#3) and find out why such behavior is prohibited here.

Next: you are in error because you believe there are only these three alternatives.

(1) As just stated, if you believe in logic, specifically in the law of the excluded middle, then your first alternative is self-contradictory and meangingless and is thus excluded.

(2) If you want to discard logic -- which apparently you do -- and claim something can arise from neither chance nor not-chance, the it's just as valid to say it could arise from BOTH as well. And you do, yet you have omitted that possibility.

(3) There is another theory for the origin of logic which you have omitted from this list: Some believe logic is an abstraction, and not a real property of the universe itself, but just part of the way we describe it to ourselves mentally. It thus arises from sentient life.

You use the example of placing three pencils on a table, so there are... three pencils. But there are no events associated with that description, it has no external effect. It is just a way of saying the pencils sit there, doing nothing, neither multiplying nor disappearing. Without a mind to call it "logic", they are just doing what pencils do: sitting there.

But both ideas -- math or logic is "out there" and we're discovering it, or it's just an abstaction we're imposing on the universe -- are simply assumptions. As far as I'm aware, nobody really knows where logic comes from. Even mathematicians argue about whether they are creating new things by doing math, or discovering concepts which are really "out there" and existed beforehand.

This possibility I also mentioned last time, and, once again, you have dealt with it by ignoring it.

And again, this is a prohibited behavior on this blog: If I say there are at least four kinds of oranges, and specifically name them, you can't go on talking about the "only three possible varieties" without explaining why you have rejected an option I just presented you. It is both unproductive and rude to attempt to make your opponent's counterexamples go away simply by pretending they were never suggested.

So to conclude this point: even if your first alternative made sense -- which it doesn't, by definition -- it wouldn't follow that there were only two other alternatives you had to discount before it was the only remaining possibility. Thus you are presenting the reader with a false choice.

Next, I explain why your arguments against the two options you excluded -- sadly, the two of your three which actually didn't contradict themselves -- are also both in error...

a.) Mathematical logic randomly appeared (in which case it's possible for 2+2=5 in another universe)

Another possiblity: Perhaps logic appeared "randomly" (as you like to say), but "before" any universes appeared, meaning each universe would still be subject to it, that it would have contributed to the creation or structure of all universes which followed.

Another possibility: Perhaps logic is just something which arises when universes themselves arise, like matter, space, or time, such that it doesn't exist, and isn't even needed until those universes and the objects they contain (and upon which logic operates) come into being. Perhaps, in order to exist, all universes might need to follow same logical rules.

Another possibility: There might be only one possible universe, such that we can't even speak of other cases.

And, again, note again that logic may be an artifact of mind, thus in another universe, with no humans, we might not say 2+2=5, but we might simply say no logic was happening there at all. Then logic is just contingent upon mind, and the question is pushed back. If we say the mind arose by chance, and logic is a process in the mind, then we could argue logic arose by chance. But it wouldn't necessarily follow that 2+2=5 in another universe if this were so.

So no, it doesn't follow, for a number of reasons, that if "logic" arose by chance then it must be true that 2+2=5 in another universe. There are numerous reasons this might not be so. Failure to foresee or address them is not the same thing as having disproven them.

b.) Mathematical logic was designed by some intelligent being (in which the creator must have appeared randomly)

So we must reject this as a possiblity... why, again? Because it is impossible to postulate that a creator could design math or logic? If so, this is another apparent proof-by-assertion. If not, I don't see why this is an excluded argument.

And how does it follow that all intelligent universe-creators must have appeared, themselves? If that which brought the universe into existence were unintelligent, would that property suddenly obviate it's need to "appear"? Why?

And when you say "God appeared randomly" -- if you are referring to the JudeoChristian God, you are contradicting yourself. The JudeoChristian God is defined as an uncreated entity with no beginning, depending on no external contingent cause.

Just as you apparently prefer to assume an eternal, purposeless, mindless structure behind all other being, so others can conceive of an eternal logical/intentional cause before all other being. An apparent inability to admit or understand that you are simply making an assumption does not cause it to cease being one, nor tell us anything about it's relative merits, much less automatically exclude or elminate all alternatives.

So far, only three sentences into your response, we've encounted a number of logical errors: circular reasoning, numerous omitted possiblities and false choices, an apparent violation of the law of the excluded middle, as well as copious examples of proof-by-assertion. ("God must have appeared at some point!" Why? Dunno!)

You ask how I can claim you aren't being logical. I think this pretty much sums it up: most your answers are fraught with these kind of mistakes. Some training in formal reasoning would probably help you.

Logic is independent of chance or design; it simply exists.

Yet again, I am just supposed to agree with you, as you have again reasserted your core thesis. Yes, I recognize that you believe this. No, simply repeating your beliefs to me does not constitute a valid form of logical proof.

And you're not being very clear. I can say: "I simply exist" or "you simply exist". Saying things "simply exist" doesn't tell us a thing about what you think their origins might be. Do you think logic has always existed, never came into being, had no beginning, and is contingent upon nothing else? I think you are. Then just say that. If not, please clarify.

But if so, that's still unhelpful: If logic didn't have the property of having arisen at some point, then we can hardly say it provides a counter-example to the assertion that events must arise from either chance or design. It is not an event. It did not arise. As you define it, it cannot serve as the counter-example you are seeking.

As with the previous point, I've pointed this out already. So that's now three times, in one comment alone, you've ignored my answers to your assertions and gone on to simply re-state the assertion again, while not addressing my response.

(A final thought on this topic: if you are saying logic is transcendant, uncaused and thus existed from eternity, you seem to be agreeing with a core Christian doctrine: "God created man in his own image" -- that the thing before all other things had the property of logic ("God" for shorthand), and and that some of our mental properties, and in particular our ability to do logic, are actually a reflection of the rules which have always existed in the original cause -- and not merely, as some materialists claim -- an unreliable, random process assumed to have no transcendent function or meaning outside our universe.)

(And if you are saying the first cause contained or had at least the property of logic, and caused other things, then it sounds very much like you are saying things were caused by, well, logic or something logical. That would sound very much like you are trying to make an argument for design. So you'll need to think, I suspect, about where you're going there. I suspect the need to avoid conclusions like this are why materialists classicly promoted the alternative idea: that logic is simply a process which arose from a randomly evolved mind, and signifies nothing of transcendant value or meaning.)

This is nothing as sophisticated as evolution or intelligent design. It also does not simply serve as a "way out" of your equation.

Ummm... you seem to have gotten confused about where the burden of proof lies. I made a statement that design and chance are defined to be the only two possible origins for a particular event. You claimed that's wrong. Well, okay, but I'm still waiting for you to supply something like sound evidence for that claim of yours. So far, it seems that I've pointed out why each suggestion you've made is either irrelevant, unsubstantiated, or logically fallacious. In response, you simply ignore my answers (rather than deal with them) and appear to re-state your original assertion.

And no, I'm not repeating anything I've ever heard.

On most these points, I can tell. You seem to be making elementary mistakes that even people who would agree with what I think is your position would disclaim.

In fact, many people may support ID, but the idea was originated by a person. Logic was not.

You appear to be confusing objects and their descriptions or theories about them, and reasoning in a circle.

I refer you to Dr. Hugh Ross' books for a thorough and compelling answer to a testable creation model.

I refer you to Dr. Hugh Ross' books for a thorough and compelling answer to a testable creation model.

The most important fallacy of the intelligent design argument is the randomness-alone concept. As if every organism on the planet was always assembled randomly from scratch every time. No. The system has "memory" of sorts. It only works from one tiny success on and forgets all mistakes. Suppose our one tiny success propagates itself so we have 10 critters. Suppose one makes a fatal mistake and disintegrates. Fine. Suppose one makes an mistake which is an improvement. Now you have 8 original and 1 new improved version (let's say it propagates itself twice as much in the same time period). If nothing else happens, in the next generation you get 80 original, and 20 new and improved; the next generation after that you get 800 and 400, and the next generation after that you get 8000 and 8000 and so on. But previously we had a 20% “error” rate. So put that into the system (10% disintegration, 10% twice as productive as before) and see what happens. You do the math. Basically the critters "remember" the successful plan - by being more or less a copy of their parent(s) and only have to make one little improvement to be a roaring success. (In the real world, the plan was carried first on the RNA (which could have been as simple as 2 molecules joined*, which would bind to a particular amino acid)
and then in one improvement, on the DNA). Now multiply the population size (or half, if you assume they've discovered the advantages of sexual reproduction) by the lifespan of the critters and how long they've been around. That's a huge number, every one an opportunity for for and “error” which might be an improvement. The only “intelligence” that is required for evolution is the system “memory” of being a fairly accurate copy of your parent(s).

*(of any of these: adenine, guanine, cytosine, or uracil; actual codons are 3 molecules long, but the third position is still wobbly and the first two do not hook up to their respective amino acids in a random fashion)

I also find it interesting that I have never heard anyone, anywhere, in this kind of discussion actually mention Darwin's four principles, which if true, mean evolution not only can, but must happen – as a mathematical certainty. See above. I defy anyone to refute them (I would quote, but have to go instead on memory):
1) Individual variation exists [as genetic mutations and [hot off the presses!!: as genes permanently modified due to environmental causes (see Anway et al. 2005 article in Science)
2) It is heritable [both kinds, if they occur in germ-line cells (sperm and eggs)]
3) Populations are capable of excess reproduction
4) The "fitter" organisms survive. [these days we say they tend to reproduce more than others]

Whereas, the concept of intelligent design is just a façade for creationism. I listened to the Bible Answer Man for a long time trying to get to the “evidence” for this.
It amounts to only three tenets, of which the first two are blatantly bogus and the third is circular.
1) Evolution is cruel and capricious. [Is it cruel that some critters are dinner for others? (now you’ll explain it use it as part of “God’s plan”); doesn’t that make God cruel?, or the other favorite explanation, that only humans (read free adult white male) feel pain in any meaningful way. As for capricious… have you never had or known someone who had any kind of freak accident or totally undeserved bad luck? (Ah, you say, God is testing us and it only appears to be capricious); well why doesn’t he treat everyone the same, then? Otherwise, that meets the definition of capricious in my book.]
2) It’s racist. [Just because scripture can be twisted to imply one group is “better” than another has no bearing on the reality that some organisms reproduce more than others, or that this ability in itself is even “better” in the long term, leading as it may to overpopulation, starvation, and possible extinction.]
3) Because the Bible [and therefore creationism] is literally true, then Adam was a real man, who really fell from grace, therefore God as a real man (Jesus) had to really atone for it. If Adam wasn’t real but we all came from apes, then there’s no need for Jesus to save us either, and there goes “the Capstone of Christianity”. [Well, maybe we have a selfish animal nature by way of being animals, and this story is one way we can let God admit complicity in this for having made us this way, and let us all get on with our lives. The whole forbidden fruit story would be like the parent who gives the toddler a cookie then says ‘Don’t eat that, or I’ll be mad’, then when the kid eats it anyway he gets spanked-not once, but for eternity. Doesn’t the punishment outweigh the crime, and who’s really to blame here anyway? And if this is the extent of your belief in the teachings of Jesus, I’d say it’s pretty shallow.]

I'd better correct this before someone else does:
from previous posting it should read:

Now multiply the population size (or half of that, if you assume they've discovered the advantages of sexual reproduction) by how long they've been around and divide by the lifespan of the critters. That's approximately a huge number...

This conversation has really been interesting – from the sidelines. I think the main point here is not Evolution vs. Creation – it is simply that the evolutionary scientists must address a philosophical issue when they contemplate how life began. The reason for this is that there is no “proof” either way. We can only look to the evidence. I mentioned the odds simply because in most “scientific” situations, when the odds become too great, the matter is reduced to what the scientists would call an impossibility.

I mention the odds of 1 in 1X10^111 and mention the fact that that number is far greater than the number of atoms – in fact greater than the number of protons and neutrons – in the ENTIRE known universe (assuming a trillion galaxies) for a reason: when you realize the incredibly small chance in these terms, you can appreciate that in most scientific situations, this would be considered an impossibility.

Even more interesting is the fact that, as I recently read in my research, that Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer and mathematician, calculated the possibility of non-life becoming life by random chance to be 1 in 1X10^40000. Scientists facing those odds must take a leap of faith when they say life happened by chance. Whether you believe in Evolution or Creation, you are basing your belief on faith alone. There is NO proof for either. Minus a proof, both are theories. THAT is the point.

(As for intelligent grappling – I also heard the Hail-bop guys are having a reunion) :o)

Now - on to other comments. I only have time to address two:

1) “Yes” and “humble seeker” both keep mentioning amino acids. “Yes” says we can calculate the chances of an amino acid forming (a single amino acid has never done any good). “humble seeker” says that some RNA amino acid chains have only 2 or 3 molecules. This is not true. RNA that is sufficient to make a useful protein consists of thousands of nucleotides (not amino acids) that are assembled by a protein (proteins are made of amino acids). All proteins need ATP or some prefabricated form of energy to do work (assembling the RNA nucleotides in this case). Note: a complex system is required to make any form of prefabricated energy that is ready for use by a protein; similarly, you must prepare your food before you eat it.

Basic biology will tell you that an amino acid is not alive in any way. How can an amino acid, or even RNA, be considered a “critter” and how can it multiply itself in order for there to be a “memory”? An amino acid is just another chemical – like salt – no one would say that salt replicated itself – by itself – and had a memory of better forms of salt. For RNA to replicate it needs a system of proteins which can only replicate RNA (proteins are very specific). For there to be cell replication / reproduction, there has to be mitosis. Mitosis requires a cell with chromosomes, and for mitosis to occur, there must be many other specialized components of the cell present.

(My 14 year old son wanted to write something on this subject – his comments are in the next paragraph – by the way – he is a genius – he just wanted to give you an idea of how complex and specialized life really is)

Consider the following: If a strand of mRNA (the RNA required to make a protein) is assembled by a protein from hundreds of random nucleotides, then it would have a totally random nucleotide sequence. Say this mRNA attaches to a rRNA (ribosome) that happens to be floating around, and that tRNAs are standing by, carrying the correct amino acids (the amino acid type is based on the anticodon on the bottom of the tRNA). This is what is required to form a protein from mRNA. But, since the mRNA was formed with a random nucleotide sequence it generates a completely random code for the amino acids, thus making the amino acid sequence in the complete protein random as well. Who says that this random protein will do anything at all? (Please review the following site for reference: http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/protfold.html) The point is that there is nothing random about life (all of the above assumes that the three forms of RNA exist to begin with).

This is why the odds of that cell just appearing suddenly / the construction of it happening simultaneously (and it must be at the same moment, otherwise the incomplete cell dies) by random chance are about 1X10^40000.

It’s like finding a watch at the bottom of a lake and saying “look at that – it is totally natural and formed by chance!” (a watch, by the way, has a much more simple structure than a cell).

2) It was mentioned that once the initial event occurred, the “critters” would evolve and the odds are not the same as the initial event (which you say “could” happen).

“As if every organism on the planet was always assembled randomly from scratch every time.”

One must remember that for there to be a beneficial mutation, there must be ADDED information. This defies logic. For a completely natural and random process to add information to create a more organized and sophisticated organism has similar odds of happening as the initial event. For example – the seemly simple division of sexes – for some “reason” these single cell organisms through random mutations become multiple cell organisms that randomly find that there are “benefits” to two sexes. Now you have the complexities of combining chromosomes and some form of mating and transport of half the individual’s chromosomes to combine with the other individual’s other half of the chromosomes. This is a huge jump! The odds are staggering – 1 in 1X10^111 is not even close – it is even less than that! And this is true for every step of the way to eventually form the diversity of life we see today!

In short: I would encourage people to look at the Laws of Biogenesis and Thermodynamics.

Biogenesis – life can only come from life.
Thermodynamics – the universe seeks entropy – “the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity” - things dissolve into chaos – they do not miraculously organize.

So the original argument is valid – scientists have faith – not proof – and they must address philosophy, personal egos and a belief system to assert that they know for a fact there is no God (I say ego because they want to be the top of the chain – and they bend their own rules and laws to fit a square peg in a round hole). They have as much faith as a Christian has when he claims there IS a God. It is all a matter of faith.

By the way – I note that some people seem to be getting emotional about this. If you want to use logic, remember that emotions can cloud your thought process and keep you from learning about and exploring other possibilities. This will keep you from discovering the Truth.

Hey Tim - the things I learned in school regarding evolution didn't even begin to touch on the notion of whether there was a need for a 'creator' or not, though there was probably an implication that evolution accounted for the diversity in living systems. Mainly, we were just supposed to understand 'variation and natural selection.' I haven't sat in enough classrooms to know what a "normal" education is. But if you're taking an informal and unscientific survey, I think that your education didn't match mine. I agree that science teachers shouldn't comment on non-scientific issues.

I've seen a number of what seem to me like misrepresentations that keep coming up in these ID vs Evolution debates flying around the web. Some are on this board, some not. I'll assume that readers of your blog at least believe in some kind of speciation and microevolution. Talking to someone who believes in a 'young earth' is usually not a matter of presenting evidence anyways, since they've already made up their minds on what evidence they will and won't accept so there isn't enough common ground for a rational debate.

Myth #1 - You either create a complex thing from scratch, or you don't create it at all.

It's just not true that in order to 'evolve' any beneficial trait, you have to get things perfect on your first try.

If you make an organism a little bit better at suriving, the organism is more likely to propagate in the next generation. It's kind of like a safe with 100 numbers 0-9 on the front. The chances of figuring out the combination is 1 *10^100. But if a number snaps into place every time you get the 'right' number, it's easy to guess a complex combination because you can move sequentially towards your goal. This doesn't always produce optimum results, but it does produce results. If most of an organism's DNA is structural, the number of mutations required for an improvement can be far smaller than the number of base pairs in the mRNA. Changes to an active site might be hugely significant. Some changes to the structural part of the protein can have almost no effect, positive or negative.

Similarly, you don't need to evolve an entire eye all at once. An eye spot which senses changes in light is a good starter. A lens can follow. The eye can't be created quickly, but any probability analysis needs to take account of the fact that it doesn't need to be constructed all at once.

Life tends to reuse thigns it makes, or that other creatures make. Serotonin is involved in apoptosis, as a neurotransmitter, as a vasoconstrictor, etc. Few things are actually designed 'from scratch.' Rhodopsin and the pigment in the eyes cones are similar, and both are made from Vitamin A from plants, split in half.

Myth #2 - Evolution is a random process

Evolution can be broken down into two basic processes. Variation and natural selection. Some people, even proponents of evolution, have called evolution 'random.' I think this is misleading and doesn't square with the evidence.

Look at a virus like Hepatitis C. Parts of its genome mutate rapidly. Parts are fairly conserved. Those portions of the hepatitis genome which need to change the most often are also those most likely to mutate. Mutation here is directed to some degree.

Likewise, look at the human immune system, which is capable of developing complex antibodies that bind to an antigen. The design process takes days to months, and is helped in part by cross-reactivity. A person who is not born with Hepatitis A antibodies can develop the antibodies during their lifetime, even thogh these antibodies are too complex to be created 'via random chance.' If your body has another antibody that it can use so it doesn't need to start from scratch, it can effectively 'select' the model. (Forgive me for anthropomorphising here.)

Some organisms increase their mutation rate when under stress, so a 'normal' mutation rate is not an accurate measure of the true rate.

There are numerous studies, both of traits in organisms and in the DNA of specific genes which show that an organism can often rapidly revert to a past trait far faster than would be allowed by normal evolution. Genes are repaired faster than would be expected. Organisms given enough food to mature and mate faster will start having children with altered traits after several generations even when the environment is returned to normal.

While there isn't any evidence yet that the DNA in the body's T cells can alter an organism's germline (inherited DNA) causing acquired traits (resistance) to be inherited, life is clearly capable of 'designing' itself in an "intelligent" fashion. I'm not sure whether that speaks in favor of ID or not. Is ID an attempt to posit God as an explanation for the complexity of life, or is it an attempt to explain complexity in excess of what would be expected with truly random mutations in DNA?

Myth #3 Mutation rates should be calculated for a single organism.

Plasmids allow single celled organisms to share beneficial genetic information. So the odds of a thing occuring need to be calculated for an entire population, not just a single lineage.

Some DNA sharing is also possible for multicellular organisms, though this is far less common.

Myth #4 Evolutionary design is analagous to human design.

This seems to be an underlying assumption in a lot of analyses. There has been some interesting work, referenced in the book 'Swarm Intelligence' which discusses machines created through evolutionary processes (variation and selection.) While the process produced some amazingly useful tools (for the purpose of tonal recognition) it also tended not to compartmentalize systems in the way that modern engineers do, and in the way that doctors and biologists tend to analyze things. We think in terms of 'organs' but life isn't organized quite the same way an industrial machine would be, with centralized control, and with each component serving a single purpose. Look at how many different purposes blood serves - transporting immune cells, oxygen, hormones and nutrients, aiding in clotting. cleaning wounds, etc.

In short, analyses which usually work for engineering may not work very well for organisms since they aren't made using the same design process.

Sorry if all this was a bit longwinded. But ultimately I think it boils down to this; the purpose of science is to produce predictive value, and not 'truth' per se. Does ID make any testable predictions which differ from other evolutionary theories? I'd be interested to hear some.

And of course, I realize that there are plenty of misrepresentations of evolutionary theory by those who claim to support it. But I figure I should wrap up this post while there are still some people willing to read to the end of it.

Thanks for reading.

Two corrections;

"base pairs in the mRNA" Should read ' nucleotides in the mRNA string, not "base pairs" (since nucleotides in mRNA aren't paired when they attach to the ribosomes.)

"Organisms given enough food to mature and mate faster will start having children with altered traits after several generations even when the environment is returned to normal."

I should clarify here. Organisms which are given an environment where they can reach maturity and mate faster will decrease the time it takes for them to reach maturity and mate, and will do this in fewer generations than a purely random, evolutionary model would predict, and these adaptations can be passed on to the next generation. Faster maturation is often an advantageous trait, since it reduces the chance of death before reproduction and decreases the time it takes for a population to increase exponentially. I don't know if these changes are genetic or epigenetic, but my point is that there's evidence that in very specific cases inheritance becomes a little Lamarkian and acquired characteristics can be passed on.
Specifically, when an organism has been forced to switch between two states in the past, going back and forth, it can pass on information about the most desireable state to it's children. I don't know if this occurs through DNA (unlikely) but it does indicate a type of inherited information, so it should be relevant to the topic.

Ryan,

Interesting point of view. Basically, you must throw out the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You must believe that in nature, things can go from chaos to organization without any direction from an outside force.

You must believe that

1. Nothing can "explode" (Big Bang)
2. Nothing can produce something.
3. Non order can produce order.
4. Non information can product information.
5. The laws of physics are wrong.
6. The laws of biology are wrong.

All without direction.

Interesting that you say: "But if a number snaps into place every time you get the 'right' number, it's easy to guess a complex combination because you can move sequentially towards your goal."

You imply a goal. You imply that a chain (of anything - it does not matter) with some of the required parts will survive in tact and be "waiting" for the next part of the combination to click in. I won't even mention that outside a cell, the components or organic life cannot survive in even water, much less the toxic brew that would have been present in what you say is the beginning. So after the first "attempt" by nothing to create something was destroyed by it's environment, the next attempt would have to start from scratch. It (a cell) MUST be complete - if not its components will be destroyed. It must have it's defenses and regulating machinery in place.

Plus to imply a goal is illogical in that non-living matter cannot have a goal - unless it is acted upon by an outside force with a goal. Nothing was not sitting around for a billion years trying to figure out how to become somthing.

So please explain how evolution could have been started in the first place, why the laws of physics and biology do not apply, and how nothing gets organized. The scientific evidence and logic clearly show that there WAS a goal - that there was a design with purpose.

Please respond with some data that has ever been proven. Please reply with some logic.

Thanks.

Hey Nicholas,

I don't think you understand the second law of thermodynamics. It applies to an entire system. As long as the sun is burning and the solar system AS A WHOLE is increasing in chaos, it's perfectly within the laws of physics for some entities WITHIN THAT SYSTEM to increase in order (i.e. decrease in entropy.)

So this doesn't violate any laws of physics whatsoever. They physics police aren't after me. I haven't violated any of their laws.

What you describe; "that all things must constantly degrade" is simply not true and has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics as observed.

> You must believe that
>3. Non order can produce order.

I do. To give a very simple example, molecules randomly flying around in a solution can precipitate into a highly ordered pattern of crystal.

Take a number of molecules with one hydrophobic end and one hydrophilic end (such as can be produced with certain components of the primordial soup and electricity\lightning) and put them in water. They will coalesce into tiny spheres on their own. This isn't guesswork. You can do the experiment yourself.

Also consider prions, which can 'replicate' even though they have no genetic material simply because they make certain other molecules conform to their shape.

Second - The 'goal' of life, or at least a goal of one celled organisms, is reproduction. You're right I'm anthropomorphizing here a little in order to try and make my point clear. There is no 'goal'. Things only tend in a certain direction. This is kindof like saying that 'water wants to flow downhill' if your audience wasn't familiar with the word 'gravity.' It's hard, writing on the web, to know just what scientific vocabulary a particular reader will have, and how thorougly they understand the words that they're familiar with.

The point is that the predecessor to a successful adaptation is often another adaptation which was also successful in its own right. The topic typically discussed here is with a complex structure like an eye. Primitive organisms such as euglenas have 'eye spots' which can sense light, much like we have retinas. An organism could have a lens, but not the muscles to control it, and still be better off. In other words, various structures are not 'all or nothing' deals. This is what I meant.

To address goals breifly - any system that works to maintain homeostasis, i.e. that uses energy to try and maintain a constant state despite a changing environment, demonstrates a very rudimentary degree of 'intelligence.'

>You must believe that
>
>1. Nothing can "explode" (Big Bang)
>2. Nothing can produce something.

I do, and this is backed up by observations in quantum physics. Vacuums have sufficient energy to bring mass into existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#The_quantum-mechanical_vacuum

I realize that you might be tempted to reject this notion because it sounds 'illogical.'

Ultimately logic fails if it doesn't match up with experimental evidence. Logic is simply a system of modeling, and a model is only as good as the predictions that it can make. There are models of the earth's environment which fail to accurately predict atmospheric temperature. When we encounter such a model, we assume that the models are wrong and the planet is right, not the other way around.
Experiment trumps logic. The best that 'logic' can do is suggest we're doing the experiment wrong, somehow.

>why the laws of physics and biology do not apply

What is a 'law of biology?' I've addressed your reference to the second law of thermodynamics. Since you haven't articulated any "Laws of biology," I can't respond to this point.

>Experiment trumps logic. The best that 'logic' can >do is suggest we're doing the experiment wrong, >somehow.

To clarify, in case this is misinterpreted, logic can be applied deductivly (apply a known rule to help us understand a situation) but if logic is used inductivly (i.e. in describing the rules that we think describe the physical world's behavior) then the experiment is the supreme arbiter. Newtonian physics is internaly consistant and logical, but that's irrelevant since its description of the physical world is not 100% accurate. Relativity and Quantum Mecahnics seem illogical, but they are also internally consistant and they allow us to better predict the outcome of experiments, so they're more valuable than Newtonian Physics is. Newtonian Physics is only used when perfect accuracy isn't needed (which is often, since most of our thinking is approximation.)

This standard may not be appealing, but it has produced theories which are useful (i.e. as predictive as possible.)

Ok... big breath...

On thermodynamics:

No natural system can be shown to tend to complex organization. For the example you gave regarding crystals, I quote the following:

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

"... And we are accustomed to saying that these configurations are 'organized.' But crystals have not been spontaneously 'furnished with organs.' [or DNA] The correct term for such regular configurations is 'ordered.' The recipe for a crystal is already present in the solution it grows from — the crystal lattice is prescribed by the structure of the molecules that compose it. The formation of crystals is the straightforward result of chemical and physical laws that do not evolve and that are, compared to genetic programs, very simple."

In other words, the molecules attract each other on an atomic level and fit into place like a puzzle. They are ordered but not organized.

The lipid bilayer spheres you mention are another example of ordered structures. They do not contain information. They do not strive for survival.

There has been work done that ascribes the same potential to amino acids attracting each other and forming proteins. It's called Biochemical Predestination and it was developed by Dr. Dean H. Kenyon. However, his theory was de-bunked and Dr. Kenyon himself appears in the DVD video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" wherein he states his theory was wrong. (Take a look at that video, by the way - it's good).

On Homeostasis:

A non-complex system such as the primordial soup could not be a homeostatic system in that it cannot react to maintain internal balance without systems in place to do so.

From http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HOMEOSTA.html :

"A homeostatic system (an industrial firm, a large organization, a cell) is an open system that maintains its structure and functions by means of a multiplicity of dynamic equilibriums rigorously controlled by interdependent regulation mechanisms."

So again: you have to have a cell - with a system and machinery in place to "want" to survive.

On vacuums:

"Vacuums have sufficient energy to bring mass into existence." I see nowhere in the cited article where the energy in a vacuum can become a significant amount of matter - only that there are temporary particles that may exist in a vacuum.

According to the theories regarding the quantum-mechanical vacuum, there may be background "body radiation" emitting from the vacuum chamber. In space where's the edge of the chamber? Even if there was background radiation and there were temporary virtual particles, they would be in one giant system. And they would seek entropy - they would seek to spread out evenly. Did you know that a small percentage of the matter used in a nuclear bomb actually converts to energy - like the size of a dime? You to say there was significant energy in the vacuum of space to form ALL the matter in the entire universe. That is a LOT of energy. Additionally, all that energy floating around in infinite space would have to ignore the second law of thermodynamics - in fact, it would ALL have to collect into one point (the exact opposite of what it should do) and explode into all matter in the universe. This is the opposite of science. It is a blatant disregard for what we observe in the world of science and the laws that have been proven true.

The article you cite even mentions the fact that within the vacuum there will be thermodynamic equilibrium. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium

On Prions:

Please see http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Biomedicine/Prions/

Prions are proteins found on the plasma membranes of cells. Prions are manufactured by other proteins that fold amino acids into specific shapes. There are chaperone proteins that carry prions to use as a template to form other prions. When an aberrant mutant prion is used as a template, another mutant prion is created. Although this is a "new" form of information transmission outside the well known functions of DNA and RNA, it still requires a host of other proteins and mechanisms to work. In short: you are wrong, prions do not replicate themselves.

Furthermore, the fact that a mutation of a prion causes the host organism to die is yet another example of a mutation that is not beneficial. In fact, almost all mutations are detrimental to the organism. I say "almost all" because I cannot be all knowing - however, I would be interested to see a bonified example of a mutation being beneficial.

I know you may offer the example of strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics - my answer to that is as follows: they are variations in a kind - survival of the fittest does apply - within a kind. These variations are based on genetic information already present but not expressed in every living unit. A resistant strep virus is still a strep virus.

A mutation for evolution is the introduction of different or new information in the coding of DNA. Mutations are almost always due to a LOSS of information - or a mix up of existing information. And such a loss or mix up is deadly or disabling.

It's kind of like saying that two different finches with specialized beaks are good examples of evolution - they are - for MICRO evolution - evolution within a kind. No new information - no mutation. No finch ever became a different species of animal - like, say a mouse-like critter. No new information was added.

On the "Laws of Biology":

The law of which I speak is known as the Law of Biogenesis. This law says two things: (1) living things always come from living things; and (2) living things produce only more living things like themselves.

On the fossil layers:

The separation of types (usually by size) of animals can be the result of the sorting power of water and sediments in a cataclysmic flood. The sudden deposition of such layers and the subsequent exposure via erosion (canyons) can be seen in such areas as Mt. St. Helens.

Can you explain how many multiple strata of solid rock are dramatically bent on some areas of the Grand Canyon without cracking? If it was deposited over millions of years and was solid when it was bent, it would fracture (as in an earth quake). For many layers (supposedly representing millions of years) to be bent without fracturing, it would have to all be wet / moist at the same time - as in a flood and sudden changes of the earth's crust or surface.

Also - why are there ALWAYS sudden appearances of fully formed animals in the fossil record? If evolution has been happening continuously for 4 billion years, then wouldn't there be a lot (millions) of intermediate critters to look at. There have been none. And the ones that were thought to be, were later discovered not to be (such as Archaeoraptor).

You state: "I don't claim to know what led to the creation of the first cell." - Right! No one does! It is all just theory! It is all based on faith (like I said before - faith in something, or faith in nothing). So, for me, the issue really is: why is evolution presented to us from birth as FACT? It is not - and there are valid arguments for both sides - ID and Evolution. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that points away from evolution - but it is ignored because of a preconceived notion - in fact, the rules are bent to fit this preconceived notion and philosophy. I just wish the news, books and magazines would say "scientists believe this bone is 28 million years old" or "scientists theorize that this animal evolved millions of years ago" - instead of "this bone IS 28 million years old" or "this animal DID IN FACT evolve millions of years ago." Make sense?

I really like this exchange, by the way - I am learning a lot - thank you! You are obviously an intelligent individual.

Let me know your thoughts...

>On thermodynamics:

>No natural system can be shown to tend to complex >organization.

Again, no natural system as a whole can tend to complex organization. But this refers to an entire system, where no energy is gained from outside the system.

Creatures on the earth can 'tend to complex organization' without violating the second law of thermodynamics because the sun tends very heavily towards disorganization (increase in entropy.)

The sun "pays our debt" so to speak, by increasing its chaos so we can decrease ours. This is in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

>The lipid bilayer spheres you mention are another >example of ordered structures. They do not >contain information. They do
>not strive for >survival.

True. And I'm not claiming that they do or that they evolve. You asked for order arising from non-order. Not information or intelligence.
Those would call for different examples.

Evolutionary programming algorithms are good examples of information arising from non-information. The book Swarm Intelligence provides an intelligent and readable (though less than breif) description of these programs and how they produce information which they don't contain using directed randomness and selection.

Regarding the lipid bilayers, you had asked how an early version of life might have survived long enough to reproduce. I wanted

to;

1. Suggest a mechanism for this (even if it might be wrong)

2. Show how easily such a structure could form. (It would invariably have been present in the primordial soup. It could be created in a lab by mixing simple chemicals and adding electricity.)

(as could amino acids)
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html

Again, this mechanism could be totally wrong. It's just a possibility.

I never heard of Dr. Dean H. Kenyon, but I'll keep the name in mind if he comes up.

Regarding homeostasis;

I don't claim to know the mechanism by which cells first arose. I don't claim to know and I'm not sure how to reliably prove or disprove any claims made about most origins of life. I'm an agnostic on that score. I'll restrict my claims to this;

That simple life existed before more complex life, that complex life didn't come into being instantaneously, and that once simple cells were created more complex life was capable of evolving.

But homeostasis is a very simple process, not a complex one. To illustrate how much information it requires, if you were programming it as code you could just write;

while (living)
{
if x > maxlimit then
x--

if x x++
}

On vacuums:

>"Vacuums have sufficient energy to bring mass >into existence." I see nowhere in the cited >article where the energy in a

>vacuum can become a >significant amount of matter >- only that there are >temporary particles that >may exist in a >vacuum.

It's a small vacuum. You get small amounts of matter. My point is that vacuums do have energy, sufficient to bring mass (subatomic particles) into existance.

I know that mass is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction. A little less than 1%, roughly, if memory serves for a fission reaction. Fusion was around 1%.

It also happens when you burn somthing or release chemical energy, although on a far less detectable order of magnitude. (I know nuclear processes are different from chemical ones, but the energy in the chemical bonds contributes a very tiny amount of mass\weight.)

>According to the theories regarding the >quantum-mechanical vacuum, there may be >background "body radiation" emitting from the >vacuum chamber. In space where's the edge of the >chamber?

I'm not up to date, but I don't think anyone's claimed to have found the edge of the universe. I don't even know if the size of the universe is constant or where the edge is.

>You to say there was significant energy in the >vacuum of space to form ALL the matter in the >entire universe. That is a LOT of energy.

That's a lot of vacuum. To be honest, I don't know exactly how much vacuum energy exists in the universe, or if it's anywhere near enough to account for the matter in the universe. I'm familiar enough with concept on the submicroscopic level to say that vaccum energy creating matter is not an impossibility. But I'm not adept enough with physics to 'do the math' there. The few times I had to use the concept back in college, I got my energy values off charts, pre cooked and ready to eat.

I don't understand the mechanism by which vacuum energy might be converted to matter or why, as you suggest and support, the universe didn't appear instantly in a state of heat death. It's a good question, better suited to a good physicist which I'm not. It would be hard to guess at this information since I don't think anyone has been able to figure out whether the universe has boundaries and whether those boundaries are expanding, contracting, or constant over time. I know the universe seems to be heading towards heat death in the current opinion based on the observed red shift and observed matter in the universe. (as opposed to collapsing in on itself, which I think a lot of physicists would have prefered.) But we are agreed that the big bang is a likely event and that the universe is currently expanding, right?

Just so we're on the same page there. It's hard to place just what kind of worldview you're arguing towards, which can make it difficult for me to respond appropriately.

>Additionally, all that energy floating around in >infinite space would have to ignore the second >law of thermodynamics - in
>fact, it would ALL >have to collect into one point (the exact >opposite of what it should do) and explode into >all matter in
>the universe. This is the opposite >of science. It is a blatant disregard for what we >observe in the world of science and the
>laws that >have been proven true.

How much space existed at the time of the big bang?

Regarding the origins of the universe, I truly don't know whether any of our assumed constants were different back then, and have changed gradually over time. I know that there's been some speculation on this. My physics background isn't good enough to evaluate the truth or falsity of it.

There is some speculation that this is happening, but it's far from dogma.

"ROGER BLANDFORD: Well, there have been reports that one of the famous constants
of nature, which is called the fine structure constant, may be changing slightly over time."

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/closertotruth/transcripts/304_cosmos.pdf

This is a bit out of my area. I'm familiar with physics to a degree, but usually in the more utilitarian sense. I'm more of a biochem geek.

On Prions:

Please see http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Biomedicine/Prions/

>Prions are proteins found on the plasma membranes >of cells. Prions are manufactured by other >proteins that fold amino acids into specific >shapes. There are chaperone proteins that carry >prions to use as a template to form other prions. >When an aberrant mutant prion is used as a >template, another mutant prion is created. >Although this is a "new" form of information >transmission outside the well known functions of >DNA and RNA, it still requires a host of other >proteins and mechanisms to work. In short: you >are >wrong, prions do not replicate themselves.

Wrong how? Because there's an extra 'chaperone' protein hypothesized to be required? A protein conformation is potential information which can be formed from inorganic processes and can transmit information in a replicative fashion by copying its conformation to another protein.

>Furthermore, the fact that a mutation of a prion >causes the host organism to die is yet another >example of a mutation that

>is not beneficial.

If it doesn't cause its host harm, it probably wouldn't be marked as a mutant, but as a 'normal variant.' Not everyone is the same height, weight, etc. You can have variation in a population with some of that variation being beneficial. Besides, there is no 'ideal' height or weight etc., though certain situations may favor a certain height or weight.

>In fact, almost all mutations are detrimental to >the organism. I say "almost all" because I cannot >be all knowing - however,
>I would be interested >to see a bonified example >of a mutation being >beneficial.

If a mutation was beneficial, would you still consider it a mutation? Various breeds of dogs are decended from wild dogs, but have been selectivly bred for certain traits. Same with breeds of horses and crops. Evolution is not a matter of getting 'better and better,' but of adapting to a new environment. In the case of animal husbandry or crop breeding, the new environment is human civilization and human breeders rather than death is the selecting agent.

This may not be the best case, but it's one of the most well recorded and demonstrated the degree to which selection can change a species.

>I know you may offer the example of strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics - my answer to that is as
>follows: they are variations in a kind - survival of the fittest does apply - within a kind. These variations are based on
>genetic information already present but not expressed in every living unit. A resistant strep virus is still a strep virus.

What do you mean by "already present but not expressed in every living unit." You're saying that the information for antibiotic resistance is already encoded in a virus or bacteria when it enters the body and can never be developed while inside the body?

The best way to demonstrate somthing like this, as you said, is to look at viruses or bacteria and see that viruses can create useful information which is not already present in their genetic material when first acquired. We can view a few thousand generations of these critters easily and in our lifetimes, and I've found a lot of people who diagree with evolution tend to have a 'show me' mentality and discount any physical evidence from past ages, disagree with evidence from the fossil record as biased, etc. Until we can reach some kind of consensus on the fossil record I'm confined to giving you examples from organisms which can replicate a few thousand times or more in our lifetimes. Namely, viruses and bacteria. (An excellent book on this topic, if you're interested, is Ewald's "The Evolution of Infectious Diseases" which discusses alterations in virulence as an adaptation. i.e. Why are lethal diseases lethal and non-lethal diseases non-lethal and under what circumstances does this change. It's especially interesting since the CDC seems to still be using the older version of Burnette and White's theory on the evolution of infectious diseases, and sometimes it seems like they're selecting the data to meet their conclusions. But I digress... )

In the treatment of HIV it's common that if a patient is inconsistant about taking their medication then the pathogen will become resistant to the medication. Resistance, as you said. However this is not a matter of expressing information which was previously there, since a person can become resistant to their meds without taking in any new strain of HIV. The strain develops inside them. It is a matter of a change in an existing strain. (Strains of HIV were also noted to often mutate to become more virulent over time, incidentally. Some strains do this more quickly than others. This is 'good' for the virus in the short term, but bad in the long term.)

Likewise, if a bacteria becomes resistant to an antibiotic, it can share this resistance with other bacteria through plasmids. Bacteria can also pick up pieces of random DNA floating by through a process called transfection which is very unreliable but occasionally works.

So the notion of 'within a kind' isn't really relevant to single celled organisms. DNA regularly passes between 'kinds' blurring the genetic boundaries between species. Having antibiotic resistant bacteria in your gut means it's more likely that the next bacterial gut infection you get will be antibiotic resistant.

Besides, if we agree that 'microevolution' is capable of producing useful information, where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution, and why? Useful adaptations (i.e. genetic information) can be produced via evolution without a loss of data.

Another example;

Viruses which are active in an organism over a long period of time need to frequently change their viral coats in order to avoid detection by the host immune system. This occurs via random mutation.