Nick Matzke: All True Scotsman Believe in Darwinian Evolution
| February 19, 2013 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
I am often amused by the Darwinists’ all-too-frequent use of the “no true Scotsman’ logical fallacy. Never heard of that fallacy you say? Let me explain. Wikipedia defines the fallacy this way:
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
Anthony Flew advanced the term using this example:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”
In summary, the fallacy takes this form:
Douglas: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
McDonald: “I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge.”
Douglas: “Then you are not a true Scotsman.”
The point is that Douglas made an unjustified assertion. Instead of backing off his assertion when he is shown that it was false, he doubles down and makes up ad hoc self-serving categories.
Nick Matzke, like many Darwinists, is a master of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Yesterday he treated us with a particularly exquisite application of the fallacy that was a wonder of sheer breathtaking hubris. Let’s see how he did it.
In this post Dr. Torley notes that Professor James M. Tour, one of the most prominent and respected chemists in the entire world, is a Darwin skeptic.
Nick responds:
Wow, your blogpost is a particularly silly comment on a particularly silly article. A guy whose field is not biology, and who shows absolutely no evidence of having seriously engaged with actual evolutionary biologists or their literature, and who appears to not have the first clue about how biologists would define “macroevolution”, spouts off on a webpage, and this is supposed to be a serious argument?
To which Dr. Torley responds:
Nick, he’s one of the world’s top ten chemists! I would think that he knows more than a few eminent biologists.
To which Nick responds:
He shows no evidence of that, either directly or in terms of showing a sign of having a clue about the field of evolutionary biology.
And what is Nick’s evidence that Dr. Tour has no clue about the field of evolutionary biology? Well, he’s a Darwin skeptic of course. Therefore, by definition he does not have a clue, no matter how eminent his credentials, no matter how cogent his arguments. In the form of the fallacy as outlined above, Nick’s argument goes like this:
Nick: All true scientists believe in Darwinian evolution.
Vincent: Dr. Tour, one of the top ten most cited chemists on the planet, is a Darwin skeptic.
Nick: Then Dr. Tour is no true scientist.
News to Nick: Getting red in the face and stamping your feet (metaphorically speaking) is not an argument. You do not get to decide who is and who is not a true scientist. Perhaps you believe you sit ex cathedra in the chair of Saint Charles the Bearded, and your pronouncements on who has a clue and who does not have a clue are infallible and binding on the faithful. But I do not count myself among the Darwinist faithful and your pronoucements are not binding on me. Believe me, I would like to among the faithful. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to swim with the cultural current instead of against it? But it is impossble for me to convert, because no matter how hard I try I just cannot muster enough blind unreasoned (and unreasonable) faith to believe that everything came from nothing and that matter spontaneously reconstituted itself from mud into space stations.
84 Responses to Nick Matzke: All True Scotsman Believe in Darwinian Evolution
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ahah! It’s the no true space station fallacy!
“Professor James M. Tour, one of the most prominent and respected chemists in the entire world, is a Darwin skeptic…”
…and he also rejects Intelligent Design (Big-ID) theory.
Luckily it was not stated that because Dr. James M. Tour rejects Darwinian evolution he must therefore also be an Intelligent Design advocate. That would have been yet another ‘true Scotsman’ fallacy! 😉
But Nick did not say that. He only questionned Tour’s knowledge of biology.
Heck, Tour himself says he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!
Have a look at the very first paragraph!
Sounds like he’s been contacted by more than one creationist/IDist desperate to recruit his authority, despite his admitted ignorance on the topic.
Correct. But apparently it is difficult to get even very basic things straight around here. Anyone with a sense of academic honesty would retract the statement made in the OP.
Nick @ 4.
Pointing out that Dr. Tour is not a specialist in the field of evolutionary biology is, of course, fair game, for whatever it is worth. And if you had stopped there I would have no quarrel with your comments. But you did not stop there.
Instead, you went much further and said Dr. Tour “shows absolutely no evidence of having seriously engaged with actual evolutionary biologists or their literature, and who appears to not have the first clue about how biologists would define ‘macroevolution.’
Then you said: “He shows no evidence of that, either directly or in terms of showing a sign of having a clue about the field of evolutionary biology.”
Every particular of both of your assertions is manifestly false. And on what basis did you advance these false assertions? On this basis: “If he were a true scientist with a clue he would agree with me”
That’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, pure and simple as it gets.
“And on what basis did you advance these false assertions?”
If he had said, “I had several hours of discussion with evolutionary biologists X, Y, and Z”, that would be direct evidence of engagement with evolutionary biologists. Instead, one gets the sense that he has sprung his questions randomly on people who are not any more experts in evolutionary biology than he is.
If he had said, “Now, evolutionary biologists typically defined ‘macroevolution’ as evolution above the level of individual gene pools, including speciation, lineage dynamics (rates of speciation and extinction), mass exinctions, adaptive radiations, and mapping the character changes that lead to major innovations on a phylogeny”, then that would some evidence of having a clue about the field of evolutionary biology. Instead, we get weirdness about wanting a “chemical explanation”, which is approximately as weird as requesting a chemical explanation of the Grand Canyon.
So, Barry — in your mind, someone who says “I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation” is really worth treating as an authority?
When it comes to evolution, everyone is a layman as no one knows how many mutations it takes to get a new body part nor a new body plan. No one seems to know much of anything. No one even seems to know how to test the claims of the “theory” of evolution.
I was fascinated yesterday by N. Matzke’s response to the previous post.
It seemed like he was making the assertion that only an evolutionary biologist could be viewed as an authority in the discussion, and yet isn’t evolutionary research(like so many science disciplines) a multidiscipinary enterprise?
In particular, isn’t abiogenesis or ab initio molecular generation an area which particularly depends on organic chemistry – Dr. Tour’s area of expertise?
My initial thought upon reading the post was that when Dr. Tour states that ‘if anyone should be able to understand evolution because I make molecules for a living’ and poses the question ‘does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution’ he is very clearly stating that he is commenting on an area which is a critical underpinning of evolution within which he is an authority.
My question to N.Matzke wouldn’t deal with fallacies of one type or another but rather on what basis does he make the claim that a noted organic chemist isn’t qualified to comment on the areas of evolution which depend on organic chemistry?
This seemed a very strange (even outrageous) claim. My thought is that the specialist (the organic chemist) would be more qualified to comment on the areas of a multidiscipinary theory (evolution) than a generalist or individual qualified in a different foscused area (evolutionary biologist).
What am I missing?
“It seemed like he was making the assertion that only an evolutionary biologist could be viewed as an authority in the discussion, and yet isn’t evolutionary research(like so many science disciplines) a multidiscipinary enterprise?”
Good point.
By default whoever makes a career out of Evolution should not be trusted, period.
Evolutionists who hold to the Darwinian doctrine feel threatened and so they must revert to authority in their own field in order to protect themselves and their career.
Its a natural self-defense mechanism, but it has nothing to do with science.
Ask yourself, is it possible to be an Evolutionary Biologist and not be an Evolutionary Biologist?
esc2,
How much does Tour know about ecology and biogeography? These are (some of the things) crucial to understanding macroevolution.
Here, I’ll be Tour for a moment:
Give me a chemical explanation of the Grand Canyon, or I guess I’m justified in thinking that no one knows how it originated. Oh, and don’t expect me to talk to any actual geologists or do any serious personal education in the topic.
Here’s another thing equivalent to what Tour is saying:
Here’s what the blog fans of the above guy would say:
‘News to Nick: Getting red in the face and stamping your feet (metaphorically speaking) is not an argument.’
It is if you think God’s rotten, and you’re not going to believe in him, because he’s nasty. So there!
But isn’t it strange, our atheist chums – I mean the mainstream wilder fringe* – can only obsess about what they charge is an omnipotent God’s wilful cruelty.
Yet, any devout Christian, or one who has personally experienced, for example, a dramatic conversion, as many people have, finds it difficult to believe even God could be so wonderful and loving. We talk about what we know, they talk about what they wish to be the case.
* When is the mainstream a fringe? When the follow the money, at the expense of reason, etc.
In re: (12)
The analogy is not quite precise, because (presumably) erosion is understood at the chemical level. (The Grand Canyon is mostly limestone and sandstone, so I guess it would be explained in terms of the electrostatic interactions between silicon (quartz), calcium (calcite), and water, right?) So Tour would say, “we really do understand the formation of the Grand Canyon, because we understand it at the chemical level.”
On the other hand, Tour seems to be saying, “since macroevolutionary processes are not understood at the level of chemistry, no one really understands them at all.”
I suppose I’m a bit surprised to hear Uncommon Descent contributors endorsing such extreme reductionism.
“Ask yourself, is it possible to be an Evolutionary Biologist and not be an Evolutionary Biologist?”
I just want to emphasize this point here further that the core foundation of Evolutionary Biology is so entrenched in Darwinism its almost impossible not to believe in Darwinism and be considered an Evolutionary Biologist much less a “qualified” critic outside the scope of Evolutionary Biology such as Tour. As far as they’re concerned you’re just a crackpot who hasn’t been paying attention in school. Damned either way.
Nick Matzke – The way I read the comments of Dr. Tour is you would qualify as “anyone”. So why don’t you sit down with him and answer his query
Think of the service you would provide if you would just explain it to him.
Oh, but I would be willing to bet you don’t really understand it either.
Mr Matzke, if Darwinism is so obviously true, as you hold it to be, then why is it that Darwinism is always added as a narrative gloss after a new discovery is made instead of actually spearheading the discoveries in the first place (Such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics spearhead new discoveries)
I might add to Darwinism not spearheading discovery, but as is obvious from the recent Junk DNA fiasco, that Darwinism actually impedes scientific progress,,,
On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. – Richard Sternberg
Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679
As well it is now known that many of the hereditary diseases that afflict humans arise from the large ‘Junk DNA’ regions:
International HoloGenomics Society – “Junk DNA Diseases”
Excerpt: A primary goal of IHGS is to elevate awareness of the fact that “some, if not all” hereditary diseases do not stop at the boundaries of “genes”
http://www.junkdna.com/junkdna_diseases.html
Excerpt: “elaborated in more detail in my “Obituary of Junk DNA “
http://www.junkdna.com/#obituary_of_junk_dna”
uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes).”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-357177
Mr Matzke, thanks for providing so much fodder for thought,,, Do you consider Didier Raoult a ‘true Scotsman’?
That would apply if chemical erosion was the only process, but a lot of erosion is due to e.g. physical abrasion, freeze/thaw, etc. And an actual explanation of the Grand Canyon would involve the local tectonic history (the gradual uplift of the plateau), the slope and the amount and speed of the water over time, etc. Saying “I haz chemistry, explain it in chemistry or your field is highly questionable” would be laughed at by geologists, and justifiably so. Ditto with macroevolution and biologists.
That’s interesting that you made this up with your imagination, because I said nothing about God, and I’m not an atheist.
I just want to emphasize this point here further that the core foundation of chemistry is so entrenched in Atomic Theory its almost impossible not to believe in Atomic Theory and be considered an Chemist much less a “qualified” critic outside the scope of Chemistry such as [pseudo-non-chemist]Tour. As far as they’re concerned you’re just a crackpot who hasn’t been paying attention in school. Damned either way.
“I just want to emphasize this point here further that the core foundation of chemistry is so entrenched in Atomic Theory its almost impossible not to believe in Atomic Theory and be considered an Chemist much less a “qualified” critic outside the scope of Chemistry such as [pseudo-non-chemist]Tour. As far as they’re concerned you’re just a crackpot who hasn’t been paying attention in school. Damned either way.”
Hahahahaha…this is pathetic, Nick, to compare Atomic Theory with Darwinism.
Mr. Matzke, do you consider James Shapiro as a ‘true Scotsman’?
Or are these guys ‘true Scotsmen’ to you Nick?
Mr. Matzke, they, like Professor Tour, reject the standard neo-Darwinian account, that you defend so fiercely, and still believe some naturalistic explanation can account for the diversity of life around us, and do not hold to ID as far as I know, thus are they also not qualified to question Darwinism?
N.Matzke @ 12,
You said “Give me a chemical explanation of the Grand Canyon, or I guess I’m justified in thinking that no one knows how it originated. Oh, and don’t expect me to talk to any actual geologists or do any serious personal education in the topic.”
I’m not sure that is exactly what he is saying.
To adapt your example, he is saying something more along the lines of ‘there is specific information within my area of expertise that ecologists et al want to consider as we examine the multidisciplinary problem of Grand Canyon erosion and I am open to talking to them.’
I also think you are vastly overstating his presumed ignorance. You say Dr. Tour doesn’t provide evidence that he spoke to evolutionary biologists and you go on to presume he did not. He actually didn’t specify either way and thus provided no evidence in either direction. He may well have talked to evolutionary biologists.
You are assuming a negative when there is no evidence of either positive or negative type. Certainly there is no basis to state that, in your hypothesized scenario, he would rebuff the expectation to talk to an ecologist where there is multidisciplinary overlap. The opposite, in fact. He didn’t specify what experts he approached but he did extend an open invitation to all disciplines to discuss over lunch – thus he is at least open to discussing with evolutionary biologists if he has not done so already.
My mind is open about the science, I am honestly still learning about evolutionary theory. But it looks from the outside you are being unfair to Dr. Tour insofar as the nature of discussion goes.
And maybe Dr. Tour understands something most Evolutionary Biologists take for granted or have not even considered.
Why not listen to engineers, chemists, mathematicians, programmers etc…? All these fields look outside their respected disciplines in order to advance their own, why not Evolutionary Biology? Is it because Darwinism already has all the answers?
N.Matzke @4
You noted that Dr. Tour stated he was a layman in the evolution and creation. He is acknowleding in that quote that there are at least elements of one or both sides of the debate in which he is not an expert and in not qualified to comment professionally.
However, does this apply to his comments in the previous post (A World Famous Chemist Tells…)? In those comments, he states that “as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living” and he poses the question “Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?”.
It appears that, while conceding he is not an expert in the general theory of evolution, he is asserting that his area of expertise does overlap, in this organic chemistry is a specialty which influences a subset of theory of evolution, and it is this focused area he is addressing?
In so doing, he is stating that 1) his area of expertise as an organic chemist is critical to elements of evolutionary theory, particularly the origins of life (the process by which life arose from inorganic matter) and 2) the explanations provided within the general theory are not sufficient or are not supported from an organic chemistry perspetive.
My take here is that Dr. Tour has been fairly responsible in bounding what areas his expertise is appropriately and inappropriately applied to and within the appropriate areas he has posed legitimate questions. Disagree?
Nick @ 7: responds to this question: “And on what basis did you advance these false assertions?” as follows:
“one gets the sense that . . .”
Oh, so you just made your false assertions up based upon your imaginings about what might have happened.
Why am I not surprised? That kind of reasoning is par for the course in your field.
Evolutionary biology – the only scientific “discipline” where the imaginings of the researcher actually count as evidence for the researcher’s theory.
Nick @ 8 writes:
“So, Barry — in your mind, someone who says “I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation” is really worth treating as an authority?”
Two responses Nick.
1. Again, that is not what you said. You said he is totally clueless, and no matter how much post hoc spin you try to put on it now, you simply can’t back that up.
2. I take it that you now admit that the one of the world’s leading experts on complex chemical synthesis might have something valuable to say about the aspects of evolutionary biology that bear on complex chemical synthesis even if he is not an expert on evolution per se? Or do you still deny this?
Next you’ll be telling me that Darwin had nothing valuable to say about evolution because his formal training was in theology, not biology. On second thought, probably not; I suspect that for your purposes this particular knife cuts only one way.
‘Mr Matzke, if Darwinism is so obviously true, as you hold it to be, then why is it that Darwinism is always added as a narrative gloss after a new discovery is made instead of actually spearheading the discoveries in the first place (Such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics spearhead new discoveries)’
What a radical, profoundly seditious question, BA! Right to the heart of the difference between science and the narrative mythologies of tribal elders. Their own version of the Dream Time.
If Tour isn’t qualified to criticize evolutionary theory then he isn’t qualified to endorse it either, and neither is any other scientist or anyone else who does not specialize in the field.
“You kids just talk among yourselves.” Rofl…
Axel @31, it gets worse for the materialist/naturalist. The more fiercely naturalism is held onto as the only allowable explanation in science, the more severe becomes the epistemological failure of their compelled ‘scientific’ conclusions:
i.e. Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:
Ironically, materialists object to God because, of all things, this,,,:
This ‘lack of a guarantee’, epistemological failure, for trusting our perceptions and reasoning in science to be trustworthy in the first place, even extends into evolutionary naturalism itself;
It is interesting to note that I believe Plantinga’s ‘Evolutionary argument against naturalism’ is obviously a very well developed refinement of the original ‘argument from reason’ by CS Lewis:
You’re just saying that because you’ve been brainwashed by the scientific establishment, which is thoroughly Atomist and which close-mindedly punishes dissenters. If academia were truly open, people skeptical of Atomism would be welcomed to have their views taught in high school and college. If you were really confident that Atomism was supported by the evidence, you’d welcome this, and not discriminate in the hiring of teachers and professors. What have you got to hide?
Wow, it’s so easy being a brave internet rebel against the orthodoxy. I should do it more often.
Well gee, if your theory is correct, he should have said he was talking about the origin of life, not “macroevolution”, which is a different thing. The fact that he mixes these up is itself evidence of amateurism and lack of study of the relevant topics.
Actually it appears I mixed them up, as they were my words in paraphrase of his.
But, admittedly, I am an amateur.
To my actual point though – is Dr. Paul’s field and area of specialization not relevant to the discussion?
Well Mr. Matzke, I guess it is not surprising that preeminent organic Chemist don’t properly understand Darwinism, because it turns out that preeminent mathematicians don’t understand it either:
quote from preceding video:
Indeed, math is not kind to Darwinism in the least when considering the probability of humans ‘randomly’ evolving:
Of related note:
Here is a one result that was arrived at when math was applied to the question of Darwinian evolution:
Verse , quote, and Music:
No, not really. Especially not macroevolution. What does this tell him about the fossil record? About the statistics of inference and testing of phylogenetic relationships? About hominids with brains half the size of ours? About comparative anatomy of humans and other vertebrates? About gene duplication and shifts of function in genes? About biogeographical patterns?
Even if we are talking about biochemistry and the origin of life, gets away from most of what this thread has been about (macroevolution), we’re still not very close.
Just because the word “organic” is in the term “organic chemistry” doesn’t make him any kind of expert in biology. “Organic” molecules are just those involving carbon chains. People who turn oil into gasoline are organic chemists too.
Manufacturing nanocars might be cool but they bear almost no resemblance to biological systems. Biological systems are dominated by kinetics rather than thermodynamics. They replicate and have populations and variability and selection processes operating. If this guy studied ribozymes or something you’d at least have a bit of an argument, in that specific domain.
Matzke @39:
Oh boy, I hope you aren’t referring to stuff like that Addy Pross paper you cited for us last year. At that time you offered his paper as proof that “Life is a kinetically-dominated process, not a thermodynamically-dominated one.”
That paper turned out to be a complete dud.
You still owe me a couple of hours of my life back for sending us down that rabbit hole. 🙂
Thanks for your completely substance-free comment. If Pross is wrong, say how.
BTW just this year he has published a popular book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0199641013
Hi Nick,
I’ve notified Professor James Tour of your offer to explain macroevolution to him, in person. Please see here for further details:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-447261
I think it is highly likely that Professor Rice will take you up on your offer.
Regarding your accusation that Professor Rice makes the elementary mistake of confusing macroevolution with the origin of life, here’s what he actually says in his online article on evolution/creation:
I suggest you read what Professor Tour says more carefully.
Kinetics (physics), the study of motion and its causes (per wiki)
Hmm,,
Okie Dokie Mr. Matzke, let’s look for the ultimate cause of motion:
Jerry Coyne and Aquinas’ First Way – Michael Egnor September 9, 2009
Excerpt: ‘The First Mover is necessary for change occurring at each moment. The argument is unrelated to the Big Bang; as noted, Aquinas assumed (for the sake of the First Way) that there was no temporal beginning of the universe. The argument works irrespective of whether or not the universe had a beginning in time. The only way to explain change in the natural world is to posit the existence of an unmoved First Mover. Aquinas goes on (in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica) to draw out in meticulous detail the necessary attributes of the First Mover, and he demonstrates that it is logically necessary that the First Mover have many attributes (simplicity, omnipotence, etc) that are traditionally attributed to God as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Argument from Motion is rigorous, and I have merely summarized its salient points, but it is straightforward once the premises are established. It is a very powerful argument.’ – Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....24951.html
I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a ‘First Mover’ accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. One line of evidence arises from the fact that there actually is a smallest indivisible unit of time; Planck time:
Planck time
Excerpt: One Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible,[3] roughly 10^?43 seconds. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, for times less than one Planck time apart, we can neither measure nor detect any change. As of May 2010, the smallest time interval that was directly measured was on the order of 12 attoseconds (12 × 10^?18 seconds),[4] about 10^24 times larger than the Planck time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
The ‘first mover’ of Aquinas’s argument was further validated by quantum mechanics since the possibility for the universe to be considered a self-sustaining ‘closed loop’ of cause and effect was removed with the refutation of the ‘hidden variable’ argument, as first postulated by Einstein, in quantum entanglement experiments.
Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009
Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142824.htm
This proof was further solidified in 2010:
Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010
Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview.
http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....alism.html
And this proof was further extended in 2011 by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it, i.e. this experiment extended ‘non-local’ realism to the particles themselves, thus extending the empirical evidence to be directly in line with what was posited in Aquinas’s ‘First Mover’ argument:
‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm
i.e. A non-local, beyond space and time, cause must be appealed to explain the continued existence of photons within space-time!
Hi everyone,
While we’re on the subject of Pross’s latest book, What is Life?: How Chemistry becomes Biology, I’d like to quote from a five-star review of the book by an IT manager:
Another reviewer with reservations made the following comments on Pross’s book:
Hmmm. Sounds like there are a lot of gaps in Pross’s account of the origin of life.
To be fair, I should mention that Professor Jerry Coyne was impressed with Pross’s book, although he’s still reading it.
This actually makes a great issue that creationists can gain by.
Who indeed has the right to claim scientist credentials to their conclusions for/against evolution?!
Evolutionists always say science/ scientists agree with evolution by hugh numbers etc.
i always reply only ‘scientists” who got paid, 9-5, to do biological rese4arch in evolution can be scored.
Then when creationists use scientists to debunk evolution great attention to research resumes is made.
Who is right? lets settle this!
i don’t regard evolutionist chemists as worthy to claim being researching evolutionists unless they show the goods.!!
All these subjects require careful thought and study.
If you do it you can present yourself as knowledgable on the subject.
Scientist or no scientist.
I am not a scientist but insist i know my stuff and take on the bad guys. No problem.
It can’t be just scoring “smart’ people or scientists/degrees.
Evolutionary biology must make or be refuted on well done evidence analysis.
Titles be dammed.
Everybody sins in this.
Creationists being the attackers to the establishment must lead the way on negotiations here.
Dr. Torley, I think that is just about the best book review I ever read. Well worth reading the entire review.
Mr. Matzke: Chemistry (my field) is much more resistant than biology to the kind of “just-so” stories that power evolutionary thinking. Chemists understand that chemicals can’t do just anything, and we have a reasonably good idea of what kinds of behavior are likely. And most of the biochemistry that evolution demands has never been demonstrated, only inferred by those who want to believe the evolutionary story. Can you provide a plausible chemical scenario, or even name someone who can?
To make the materialist position even more untenable, the chemical origin of life is much less plausible, as I think even you realize.
Nick, so are you referring to Pross’ theory? Please confirm.
Yes, I thought that was obvious. Although he doesn’t have a complete theory of course, as he himself says. My only point is that the conceptual bridge between chemical kinetics and biological replication is a useful piece in thinking about how to transition between the domains in biology and chemistry.
Wrong again ba77. We are talking about chemical kinetics, i.e. the rates of reaction in chemistry.
vjtorley — that reviewer is barely lucid, let alone coherent or convincing. Here’s the rest of the review:
Nick @41:
Nick, don’t be silly. We spent the better part of an entire thread on this issue last year. Initially I misunderstood what you were referring to when you first brought up this “kinetic state” idea, and you kindly clarified what you were referring to.
I have read and analyzed the Pross paper, and in that thread last year I demonstrated in detail why Pross’ idea doesn’t hold water. I also demonstrated that it was a literature bluff on your part in the context of our OOL discussion.
It is certainly up to Pross (and you if you support him) to show why this so-called “kinetic state of life” helps answer any meaningful questions. Those of us who have examined the idea with a critical eye have found it quite wanting.
—–
Onlookers:
If anyone is interested in a quick refresher on this so-called ‘kinetic state of life’ idea Nick has latched onto (as a way to avoid having to discuss thermodynamic constraints), these two posts may be of interest:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-421592
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-421718
Thanks. I was unaware of your responses to the Pross articles. I had written off the thread since no one even seemed to understand what chemical kinetics was. But your responses were far too facile. E.g., I’ll address the first response, as there is little new in the second one.
The point is this: most people think of replication as all-or-nothing. But kinetic autocatalysis is a quantitative thing — some polymers could weakly catalyze the formation of polymers more like themselves, and other polymers might do this better. This might be a gradual way to get to replication.
Yes, the devil is in the details, and it won’t be Pross getting a Nobel Prize for providing the conceptual bridge, it will be (if it happens) someone showing some plausible demonstration with actual chemicals in the lab.
It’s vaguely true to say that “The reaction could occur without it, it would just take longer”. Thermodynamically, graphite is a lower Gibbs energy state than diamond, and so all diamond, if left alone, will eventually convert to graphite. But this thermodynamic fact is basically irrelevant because the kinetics are so slow. Thermodynamics only tells you what the long-term equilibrium will be when time runs out towards infinity. Kinetics is what tells you what will actually happen in reasonably relevant amounts of time.
That’s just wrong. The Earth, as well as many microenvironments, have a relatively constant flux of energy flowing through them. So any replicating system will increase exponentially until it uses up the resource supply, and then crash — but if energy keeps flowing in, a stable population will persist. It’s very much like the ecological concept of carrying capacity. Thermodynamics is never violated, because energy keeps flowing in. If the energy is ever shut off, well then, big problems happen — exactly like we would have big problems if the Sun suddenly turned off.
In the case of prebiotic chemistry, the most likely energy source for helping turn monomers into polymers may be polyphosphate, which has the same high-energy bonds as ATP, but which dissolves out of certain rocks with nothing more fancy than the rocks being heated.
Considering what a stink IDists/creationists like to make about thermodynamics, certainly it’s interesting if kinetics yields a different result than what a naive equilibrium-based thermodynamics approach would predict, and it’s even more interesting if replication looks to be a special, auto-amplifying case of kinetics being dominant.
Sadly, this passage indicates that you actually aren’t understanding Pross at all. “Control” here simply means “dominant explanatory factor”. Pross is discussing systems and timescales where kinetics dominates over equilibrium thermodynamics. It’s not much different from saying “the rate of mountain uplift ultimately controls the rate of erosion, since steeper slopes erode more quickly.”
Nick: “Life is a kinetically-dominated process, not a thermodynamically-dominated one.”
I am sure Pross would quiver before your mighty rebuttal.
Nothing except demonstrated prebiotic syntheses in the lab and in space of numerous important biological molecules and their precursors, numerous forms of progress in the RNA World Hypothesis, Pross’s conceptual work linking biological replication to kinetics-dominated chemistry, and Nowak’s (2009, PNAS) confirmatory mathematical modeling indicating that replication is not an all-or-nothing thing, but could be achieved gradually in a system that continually forms and degrades variably autocatalytic polymers.
True, not all problems are solved, but progress is made step-by-slow-step.
You are wrong. I’ve followed Pross’s stuff since 2005 or 2006.
Based on his abstract? Didn’t even bother to read the article?
And I love how on creationist forums, citing scientific literature is seen as some kind of sin.
One could be forgiven for concluding that Pross’ idea seems to be based primarily on a semantic game. To his credit he acknowledges that thermodynamics is a live issue (some of the ardent materialists could take note here). He notes that inanimate objects tend toward a simpler stable state (the old entropy issue). He notes that, in stark contrast, complex self-replicating living organisms seem to thrive at odds with this general thermodynamic principle. How could that be?
Well, the answer is quite simple. We’ll just re-define a complex self-replicator as the most stable state for living organisms! (The idea being supported by a quote from Dawkins of all people — pause for laughter).
And since a complex self-replicating system is the most stable state (conveniently redefined) for living systems, it stands to reason that under good ol’ thermodynamic principles living systems will evolve toward and stabilize at this complex self-replicating state. Ta da! Thermodynamics isn’t a problem after all.
You certainly haven’t explained what it means. Saying life is “dominated by chemical reaction rates” as some kind of solution to OOL or as a counter to thermodynamic issues isn’t even wrong. It is just nonsense.
Two Pross articles were cited. As I stated, I did not have access to the first (only the abstract), but did have access to the second, which I carefully read and critiqued. But if you think the first paper has some additional key substance that was missing from the other paper, please by all means, let us know what that nugget of wisdom might be.
By “creationist” I presume you mean “doesn’t agree with the purely materialistic creation myth”? 🙂
And no, citing literature is not a sin. But this is: (i) citing literature in a literature bomb, (ii) that you know doesn’t address the issue being discussed, (iii) and then doing your typical nose-in-the-air “you dummies aren’t acquainted with the literature” attitude. I realize you often do it just to pull our chain though, so we’ll try to take it in good fun. 🙂
You’re obviously free to keep quoting the silly line: “life is a kinetic state” and to keep pretending that it somehow addresses the fundamental issues we’re interested in, but don’t expect that assertion to carry much weight (especially when it isn’t fleshed out in any meaningful way).
As I’ve said, I’m sure Pross is doing some nice research. Perhaps his efforts will yield some insights into how chemical reaction rates affect cellular processes. But proposing “life as a kinetic state” to address OOL or larger thermodynamic issues is a complete bluff, and you know it.
Eric — what, exactly, is the thermodynamic issue again? Surely you don’t go in for the YEC “Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution” silliness, right?
We’ve got energy flowing through the system (Earth and its microenvironments), so thermodynamic equilibrium is never reached in any case — just as when the sun shines on one side of a room, that side gets warmer than the shaded side.
Nick @ 49:
So chemical reaction rates can happen completely without reference to the foundational motion elucidated in physics??? Wow Nick, I think you’ve just about rewritten all of science just to protect your naturalistic worldview!
Mr. Matzke states:
Mr. Matzke, You’re not going to argue ‘the earth is an open system therefore the second law does not hold’ silliness are you? For crying out loud, the second law was formulated right here on earth (an open system) in the first place!
But so much about theoretical posturing, and the Darwinists heroically vain attempts to play semantics with the clear implications presented to them by the second law, let’s get down to the brass tax and see what the empirical evidence, since it has final say in science, says. Does the empirical evidence say that the second law holds for biology or not?
And while neo-Darwinian evolution has no, and I mean NO, empirical evidence that material processes can generate any non-trivial functional information over and above what is already present in a biological system, Intelligent Design does have ‘proof of principle’ that intelligence/information can ‘locally’ violate the second law and generate ‘potential’ energy:
Further notes:
Verse and music:
Only if you equivocate over what “logical” and “fallacy” mean.
Maybe this Pross guy should get together with this dude:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465022537
Re your #33, BA, that is what is so very, very disturbing. Truly, Greg is right: I ought not be up to arguing any, even secondary-school science topic.
However, the truly scarey thing is that I, even I, (pardon my ‘belles lettres’ forays?), cannot but routinely show them up to be the monkeys they so pertinaciously aspire to be. I mean, people are telling us in all sorts of media that Hawking is the greatest brain since Einstein – and the poor sap posits that a law, a law of nature, could have been responsible for creating the universe!!!! Einstein was at least bright enough to be appalled at the Consensus of his day (same as today’s), who didn’t believe in Intelligent Design, when its all around us, staring us in the face.
Then of course, there’s the Multiverse. I wonder if there could possibly be, in any other universe in the multiverse, academically-educated people with such benighted, infantile minds, as to believe in the possibility of the multiverse they are conjectured to inhabit!
Truly, no depth of intellectual folly, on the part of the atheist, can be ruled out, when atheism is dogmatically held. I mean, even the atheism of the nice guys, cannot but be ‘off the wall’, since religion (of believers and unbelievers) is so seminal, as the ultimate base-line for our logic. How could it be otherwise?
Okie Dokie Dieb @57, if you show me how the kinetics of chemical reactions can take place without any motion of photons or atoms, I will concede that the Kinetics of physics, the study of motion and its causes, doesn’t apply to Chemical Kinetics..
to Rehash:
let’s look for the ultimate cause of motion:
I find this centuries old philosophical argument, for the necessity of a ‘First Mover’ accounting for change occurring at each moment, to be validated by quantum mechanics. One line of evidence arises from the fact that there actually is a smallest indivisible unit of time; Planck time:
The ‘first mover’ of Aquinas’s argument was further validated by quantum mechanics since the possibility for the universe to be considered a self-sustaining ‘closed loop’ of cause and effect was removed with the refutation of the ‘hidden variable’ argument, as first postulated by Einstein, in quantum entanglement experiments.
This proof was further solidified in 2010:
And this proof was further extended in 2011 by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it, i.e. this experiment extended ‘non-local’ realism to the particles themselves, thus extending the empirical evidence to be directly in line with what was posited in Aquinas’s ‘First Mover’ argument:
Zeilinger’s group went even further last month
i.e. A non-local, beyond space and time, cause must always be appealed to to explain the continued existence of photons within space-time!
Moreover quantum teleportation extends to atoms and is not limited to photons:
Dieb, This is all simply devastating to any conceivable materialistic explanation:
Further notes:
Verse and music:
Nick @54:
What does that have to do with anything? I trust you’re not falling back on the “Earth-is-an-open-system-so-anything-goes” line of thought.
In any event, don’t complain to me about bringing up thermodynamics. Talk to your buddy Pross. He is the one who brought it up in his paper as a real issue that needs to be dealt with. His “kinetic state” idea seems to be an attempt to find a way to overcome the normal thermodynamic constraints, a way to explain how living things behave differently than non-living things. Or maybe you didn’t read the paper I read, just the abstract. 🙂
Man, I sure hope that Nick isn’t Scottish. That would just be wrong.
So the Sun is shining. Giving off something, I guess. But what?
I mean, I thought the Sun was converting energy to mass.
Is it also converting mass to energy?
That would be awesome. Almost like a perpetual motion machine!
And then this stuff, or non-stuff, whatever it is, can be used to drive reactions in a way otherwise improbable, but how?
So with enough energy from the sun, for example, water can turn into ice. Am I on the right track here?
@Mung (65)
Where to start? Perhaps best with the second part!
Our sun is converting mass to energy via the fusion reaction which merges protons into helium nuclei.
Our sun isn’t converting energy to mass – that’s the prerogative of things like super-novas…
Joe Felsenstein “answers” Mung:
Really? Can the Sun produce a refrigerator and solar cells? If not, then either JF is totally clueless or just dishonest.
I would also love to see this refigerator that runs on DC- maybe JF doesn’t understand that solar cell power is DC that needs to be converted into AC before it can run home appliances.
DiEb,
Thanks. 🙂
So is the sun actually converting mass to energy or is it just that some form of energy is released given the fusion process? I see according to wikipedia some mass is not conserved.
Merging protons into helium nuclei requires energy, doesn’t it? And overall energy is actually being lost not gained?
But really what I am trying to get at is what sort or sorts of energy reach the earth from the sun. Is it all some sort of radiation or other?
Are we talking actual energy of some sort or other or potential energy, or both?
Mung, why not run through the 101 here on? KF
Mung, you should try a textbook on physics – you can’t expect to get the basics spoon-fed…
But for the moment:
Yes, the sun is actually converting mass to energy: the product of the fusion is not as heavy as the ingredients and a photon is emitted (photon = energy, look it up)
Luckily for us, fusion doesn’t happen spontaneously under our normal circumstances, you need the right environment (heat and pressure). In a H-Bomb this environment is created by an A-Bomb… But the reaction is exothermic, you get quite a bit of energy out of it…
Mainly radiation, a couple of particles too (see, e.g., solar wind)
Actual vs. potential energy is a false dichotomy, implying that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Yes I am not a physicist and no I don’t know all the lingo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
Assuming the earth as a lifeless planet, what are the various energies present on earth and from whence do those energies originate?
For example, the gravity of the earth and the gravitational pull of the sun.
“Potential energy exists whenever an object which has mass has a position within a force field. The most everyday example of this is the position of objects in the earth’s gravitational field.”
Potential Energy
It’s not so much the lingo, it’s the underlying concepts. If you want to talk about the physics, you have to do some work at first, e.g., to learn how to differ between forces and energy. I don’t expect you to become a physicist, but it takes a little bit more than exchanging comments on a message board. Why should I answer your question
knowing that you will be at best be baffled by the answer, and at worst misinterpret it?
“Why should I answer your question…”
Why not?
“…knowing that you will be at best be baffled by the answer, and at worst misinterpret it?”
Well, because I’d really like to know, for one.
And you’re a nice person who hates to see people wallowing in ignorance. 🙂
I don’t buy into the 2LoT argument against OOL or the possibility of evolution, but neither do I think it’s a matter of “just add energy.” So I thought I’d try to explore more deeply the issues involved.
If you don’t want to hey, this is just a blog. This thread will likely soon die. The 2LoT in action. 😉
What you wish for is a transformation of energies, a flow of energy: a battery for itself is nice, but it gets only interesting if you have an electrical circuit.
On the earth, there are many processes which involve the transformation of energies – you have the radioactive decay of elements in the core which power the convection currents and move the tectonic plates around, there is the rotational energy of the earth itself which decreases and allows for the tides, and of course the radiation of the sun which powers e.g., our weather…
DiEb:
That’s what’s in my thinking. So I wonder why people feel the need to appeal to energy from the sun in refuting Creationists over the 2LoT?
It may appear as a convenient source of energy but it’s not the only source, right?
“Life is a kinetic state.”
So proclaims Nick on multiple occasions. I have said this doesn’t make sense and Nick accuses me of not understanding the groundbreaking work Pross is doing (in brief, Pross has been studying chemical reaction rates in the self-replication process.)
Well, what does the phrase actually mean? “Life is a kinetic state” is a seductively concise, even elegant, formulation. It sounds like it should mean something, and yet if we rephrase the words it may help us move away from the cute formulation and into the facts.
“Kinetic” in this case refers to the rates of chemical processes, or chemical reaction rates. Great, now we can rephrase the sound byte:
“Life is a state of chemical reaction rates.”
or perhaps
“Life is characterized by chemical reaction rates.”
As soon as we define what the initial phrase actually means, the objective observer should immediately scratch their head and say “What?!” I defy anyone to show how this is meaningful.
Of course chemical reaction rates are relevant to life, but it makes no sense to pretend that they are any kind of answer to OOL or thermodynamic considerations or the evolution of self-replicating systems and so on. Chemical reaction rates are what they are and are used by the overall system: a system dominated by digital code and information processing and molecular machines, and carefully orchestrated systems . . .
—–
If you are still not convinced and think there may be some deeper meaning to “life is a kinetic state,” let me put forth an equivalent scenario:
Let’s say we have studied DNA and note that hydrogen bonds are critical to DNA formation and stability. We then announce that “Life is a state of hydrogen bonds.” We could even write a few papers and a book or two putting forth this theory. We could even pretend that this concept somehow helps explain OOL and the evolution of complex self-replicating systems, and also helps overcome any thermodynamic considerations anyone raises. Thereafter, any time someone raises one of these substantive issues, instead of answering on the merits, we put forth our one-liner, with all the gravitas and authority we can muster:
“Life is a state of hydrogen bonds.”
The objective outside observer might be forgiven for raising their eyebrow, shaking their head, and responding: “What in the world are you talking about?”
—–
Again, I have said it before, Pross is no doubt doing some excellent work on chemical reaction rates and there may be some good data or insights that come from his work about specific reactions in specific replication systems. But to use the statement that “life is a kinetic state” as some kind of answer to legitimate questions is both: (i) a meaningless misdirection, (ii) a failure to engage the real issues.
Mung @75:
Good point.
More generally, the sun’s involvement and the whole “earth is an open system” line or argumentation is nonsense and fails to address the thermodynamic issues (whatever those may be).
Life is carbon chemistry in action.
“Life is matter controlled by symbols”
Prof Emeritus, Physics, Howard Pattee.
😉
Pattee @79 (via Mung), that is getting a bit closer to the truth. At least the statement is comprehensible. 🙂
But I think we’d still have to add in some other parameters. My digital watch is matter controlled by symbols, but it is not alive.
Oops, sorry, UB.
That was UB @79.
No doubt, Eric.
Pattee’s comment was centered within a specific discussion of physical facts – designed to throw the common “its just chemistry” view on its side (and appropriately so).
Life is not just chemistry.
The Same and Not the Same
So much for the claims that macroevolution has nothing to do with chemistry.
UB @82:
Agreed. And the symbolic control factor is indeed critical.