Cosmology Fine tuning Intelligent Design Multiverse

Steve Meyer on why a supposed multiverse is no answer to the extreme fine-tuning of our universe

Spread the love

Here’s an excerpt from Steve Meyer’s chapter, “What is the evidence for intelligent design?” in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021)

The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning. Indeed, all the various materialistic explanations for the origin of the fine-tuning — i.e., the explanations that attempt to explain the fine-tuning without invoking intelligent design — invariably invoke prior unexplained fine-tuning.

Improbability and Functional Specification

Moreover, the fine-tuning of the universe exhibits precisely those features — extreme improbability and functional specification — that invariably trigger an awareness of, and justify an inference to, intelligent design.6 Because the multiverse theory cannot explain fine-tuning without invoking prior fine-tuning, and because the fine-tuning of a physical system to accomplish a recognizable or propitious end is exactly the kind of thing we know intelligent agents do, it follows that intelligent design stands as the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. And that makes intelligent design detectable in both the physical parameters of the universe and the information-bearing properties of life.

Stephen C. Meyer, “Anthropic Fine-Tuning as Evidence of Design” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 28, 2022)

Here are the rest of the excerpts from Meyer’s chapter.

You may also wish to read: Templeton tries to wish away fine-tuning of the universe.

29 Replies to “Steve Meyer on why a supposed multiverse is no answer to the extreme fine-tuning of our universe

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    A multiverse leads to absurdity.

    I continually post that anything infinite in terms of time leads to absurdity. Whether it is an universe of infinite time or a multi-verse.

    Why? Because no one defending such a system can explain why everything physically possible could not happen under such a scenario. Or more importantly hasn’t already happened.

    They fail to examine the implications of such a belief. We only know a world with time so naturally assume all worlds are time oriented. But such a belief will always lead to absurd conclusions.

    Challenge: describe something that is physically possible that hasn’t already happened?

  2. 2
    doubter says:

    There are many I think convincing (to non-dogmatic closed minded materialists) arguments showing that multiverse explanations of fine tuning are absurd. Meyer’s argument is one of the best.

  3. 3
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Until they explain to us the multiverse scam they should start with simpler problems to solve like explaining the symbol-matter problem(origin of information that can’t come from matter ).

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    The multiverse hypothesis, as I understand it, is a speculative mathematical model and nobody is claiming it to be anything more.

    This is unlike the creationist claim which is held by its proponents to be certainly true but without the benefit of even a mathematical model.

  5. 5
    Belfast says:

    Seversky’s Magic Answers.
    1. It’s only a model. (Fair)
    2. It’s a mathematical model. (Good)
    3. Its a speculative mathematical model (Smasher)
    However, not magic if used on its own; to achieve Abracadabra status must be followed by,
    4. Tu Quoque OR Irrelevant Shiny Thing (Personal Choice)

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky claims: “The multiverse hypothesis, as I understand it, is a speculative mathematical model and nobody is claiming it to be anything more.”

    Well actually, directly contrary to what Seversky claims, and as the late Steven Weinberg himself pointed out, the multiverse is not even a ‘speculative mathematical model’. Specifically, Weinberg stated that, “we don’t even have a theory in which that (multiverse) speculation is mathematically realized.”

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized.”,,,
    – Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video
    – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    After Seversky falsely claimed that the multiverse is a ‘speculative mathematical model’, Seversky then goes on to falsely claim that, “This is unlike the creationist claim which is held by its proponents to be certainly true but without the benefit of even a mathematical model.”

    What in blue blazes is Seversky going on about? The fact that (immaterial) mathematics is even applicable to the physical universe, (besides being proof, in and of itself, that we must possess an immaterial mind/soul to even be able to comprehend this immaterial ‘Platonic’ realm of mathematics in the first place), is to be considered, by all rights, a miracle.

    In fact, both Eugene Wigner, (who won a Nobel prize for his mathematical work in quantum mechanics), and Albert Einstein, (who needs no introduction), are both on record as to regarding it as a miracle that mathematics should even be applicable to the universe.

    Wigner, after rightly questioning the ability of Darwinian evolution to explain our reasoning power “to the perfection which it seems to possess”, stated that, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt:,, certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~v1ranick/papers/wigner.pdf

    Likewise, Einstein himself stated that “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way” And Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling the (mathematical) comprehensibility of the universe a ‘miracle’.

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    – per Letter to Maurice Solovine

    And the last time I checked, miracles are defined as being from God.

    mir·a·cle
    noun
    noun: miracle; plural noun: miracles
    a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

    Moreover, it is not as if the belief that the Mind of God must be behind any mathematics that describe the universe is a stranger to physics.

    In fact, modern physics was born precisely out of the Christian belief, (via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology), that any mathematics that might describe this universe are “God’s thoughts”.

    KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser – April 2020
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    As Kepler himself succinctly stated in the year 1619 shortly after he discovered the mathematical laws of planetary motion,

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!…”
    – Johannes Kepler – 1619

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Johannes Kepler Kepler, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,,,

    “Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991)
    Abstract Excerpt: Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do.
    http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm

    “That (contingency) was a huge concept (that was important for the founding of modern science). The historians of science call that ‘contingency’. The idea that nature has an order that is built into it. But it is an order that is contingent upon the will of the Creator. It could have been otherwise. Just as there are many ways to make a timepiece, or a clock,,, there are many different ways God could have ordered the universe. And it is up to us not to deduce that order from first principles, or from some intuitions that we have about how nature ought to be, but rather it is important to go out and see how nature actually is.”
    – Stephen Meyer – 5:00 minute mark – Andrew Klavan and Stephen Meyer Talk God and Science
    https://idthefuture.com/1530/

    ,,, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned), and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the “freedom-of-choice” loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company),

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Abstract:,, This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    ,,, then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

    December 2021 – When scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-time-for-american-thanksgiving-stephen-meyer-on-the-frailty-of-scientific-atheism/#comment-741600

    Jesus Christ’s Resurrection from the Dead as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  7. 7
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    It appears that Top Scientists proceed today in reckless disregard of the dangers of arrogance and bias, and the practical lessons of data overreach, false assumptions, and deficient reasoning.

    Fifteen years and nine children ago, my future hubby and I were in an elective “seminar” at our creationist school called the Foundations of Thermodynamics. It was remarkably advanced for a poor hick high school.

    It was taught by our Physics teacher.(she also was sponsor of the gun club and the Book of Psalms club) We learned how physics is built up logically from on “laws”, a law being merely a statement of a generalization of empircal data. As an example, the laws of thermodynamics.
    We learned that when one begins with a garbage law , one gets garbabge. An example being Dr Enrico Fermi’s infamous statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “It is impossible to construct a machine that produces work by exchanging heat with a sigle reservior, aka a perpetual motion machine”. Dr. Fermi’s false law (his law iwas also tautological) leads to the rigorous proof of false theroems such as “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot.”‘, well known since the 1870’s to be false..

    In geometry the laws are mere assumptions. (The assumptions are given the more upscale term “postulates”) The geometry we took in 10th grade was based on reasonable, seemingly obvious postualtes. They lead oto a proof of theormems such as: “The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees” that are well known to be false by those who inhabit the planet earth.

    Now we have “Specualtive Physics” which is not Physcis at all, as the “laws” are merely assumptions, and ones that can never be verified by empirical evidence. But they do serve two important purposes. 1) They provide generous helpings of NSF gravy. 2) They provide high-end intellectualized baloney to cover up the failure of Atheist Science, at least for some our dimmer breathern.

  8. 8
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    It appears that Top Scientists proceed today in reckless disregard of the dangers of arrogance and bias, and the practical lessons of data overreach, false assumptions, and deficient reasoning.

    Fifteen years and nine children ago, my future hubby and I were in an elective “seminar” at our creationist school called the Foundations of Thermodynamics. It was remarkably advanced for a poor hick high school.

    It was taught by our Physics teacher.(she also was sponsor of the gun club and the Book of Psalms club) We learned how physics is built up logically from on “laws”, a law being merely a statement of a generalization of empircal data. As an example, the laws of thermodynamics.
    We learned that when one begins with a garbage law , one gets garbabge. An example being Dr Enrico Fermi’s infamous statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “It is impossible to construct a machine that produces work by exchanging heat with a sigle reservior, aka a perpetual motion machine”. Dr. Fermi’s false law (his law iwas also tautological) leads to the rigorous proof of false theroems such as “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot.”‘, well known since the 1870’s to be false..

    In geometry the laws are mere assumptions. (The assumptions are given the more upscale term “postulates”) The geometry we took in 10th grade was based on reasonable, seemingly obvious postualtes. They lead oto a proof of theormems such as: “The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees” that are well known to be false by those who inhabit the planet earth.

    Now we have “Specualtive Physics” which is not Physcis at all, as the “laws” are merely assumptions, and ones that can never be verified by empirical evidence. But they do serve two important purposes. 1) They provide generous helpings of NSF gravy. 2) They provide high-end intellectualized baloney to cover up the failure of Atheist Science, at least for some our dimmer breathern.

  9. 9
    JVL says:

    Tammie: The geometry we took in 10th grade was based on reasonable, seemingly obvious postualtes. They lead oto a proof of theormems such as: “The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees” that are well known to be false by those who inhabit the planet earth.

    While it is true the sum of the angles of a triangle on a curved surface (like the earth) is Not 180-degrees I have a feeling that is not what you are talking about.

    So, can you please clarify: under what conditions and situations do you think the sum of the measures of the angles of a triangle do not equal 180-degrees.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES/7

    Fifteen years and nine children ago, my future hubby and I were in an elective “seminar” at our creationist school called the Foundations of Thermodynamics. It was remarkably advanced for a poor hick high school.

    It was taught by our Physics teacher.(she also was sponsor of the gun club and the Book of Psalms club) We learned how physics is built up logically from on “laws”, a law being merely a statement of a generalization of empircal data. As an example, the laws of thermodynamics.
    We learned that when one begins with a garbage law , one gets garbabge. An example being Dr Enrico Fermi’s infamous statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “It is impossible to construct a machine that produces work by exchanging heat with a sigle reservior, aka a perpetual motion machine”. Dr. Fermi’s false law (his law iwas also tautological) leads to the rigorous proof of false theroems such as “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot.”‘, well known since the 1870’s to be false..

    It sounds like your physics teacher, far from trying to provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject, was pursuing the standard creationist agenda of trying to discredit it.

    For example, “Dr. Fermi’s false law” seems to be referring to the Kelvin-Planck statement:

    Before any analytical approach for implementing the second law of thermodynamics on energy systems, there are several expressions that are a basis for further analysis. These expressions are:

    Kelvin-Planck statement: It is impossible to make a thermal engine that works in a thermodynamic cycle and generates power while it has a heat exchange only with one thermal reservoir. In other words, heat engines must exchange heat with two thermal reservoirs, including a heat source and a heat sink. Hence, all heat additions to heat engines cannot be converted into useful work, and a part of thermal energy must be rejected into the thermal sink.

    As for “Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot” that is true insofar as we never observe it. If you put two bottles of water, one hot and one cold in an insulated container, the hot one will cool and the cold will get warmer until they reach an equilibrium temperature. You will never observe the hot one getting even hotter and the cold one getting even colder on their own.

    If, by the 1870’s reference, your teacher meant “Maxwell’s Demon” that was a purely speculative hypothesis that doesn’t change what we would observe in the little experiment above although it has led on to some very interesting work much more recently.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, a Darwinian Atheist, tries to correct Tammie, a Christian Theist, on her understanding of the second law. 🙂

    I’m sure that Sir William Thomson, i.e. Lord Kelvin, a Christian Theist, would have been amused that an Atheist would try to correct a Christian on the second law.

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

    Seversky, as a Darwinian Atheist, is simply in no position whatsoever to correct anyone on the second law.

    Simply put, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science, almost directly, if not directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had, and/or ‘naturally selected’ for, over long periods of time.

    Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed ‘maximum entropy’, and/or entropic ‘heat death’, of the universe is finally reached.

    “the chaotic state (the state of maximum entropy) is so enormously more likely than ordered states that an isolated system will evolve to it,”
    https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science/The-study-of-gravitation

    The Future of the Universe
    Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. — Not a happy ending.
    http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/p.....uture.html

    What is the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
    By Jim Lucas – May 22, 2015
    Excerpt: The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.,,,
    The Second Law also predicts the end of the universe, according to Boston University. “It implies that the universe will end in a ‘heat death’ in which everything is at the same temperature. This is the ultimate level of disorder;
    http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html

    This is not a minor problem for Darwinists such as Seversky. As Eddington himself explained, “if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

    “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
    – Arthur Eddington, New Pathways in Science

    The Common Sense Law of Physics Granville Sewell – March 2016
    Excerpt: (The) “compensation” argument, used by every physics text which discusses evolution and the second law to dismiss the claim that what has happened on Earth may violate the more general statements of the second law, was the target of my article “Entropy, Evolution, and Open Systems,” published in the proceedings of the 2011 Cornell meeting Biological Information: New Perspectives (BINP).
    In that article, I showed that the very equations of entropy change upon which this compensation argument is based actually support, on closer examination, the common sense conclusion that “if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.” The fact that order can increase in an open system does not mean that computers can appear on a barren planet as long as the planet receives solar energy. Something must be entering our open system that makes the appearance of computers not extremely improbable, for example: computers.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02725.html

    Moreover, the recent experimental realizations of the Maxwell demon thought experiment have only made, what was already a bad situation for Darwinists, exponentially worse.

    As the following article states: “Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system, Now in information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    Simply put, and as far as the Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian evolution debate is concerned, finding, (via Maxwell’s demon), that entropy is not “a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system” is NOT a minor problem for the Darwinian atheist to overcome since Darwinists resolutely hold that intelligent ‘observers’ had nothing whatsoever to do with overcoming the gargantuan ‘thermodynamic chasm’ that is present between non-life and life.

    Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
    – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy

    Verse:

    Romans 8:19-21
    For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    Unguided evolution does NOT contradict the second law of thermodynamics nor the law disprove evolution.

    https://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

    https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0195-3

    https://medium.com/the-evolutionist/why-evolution-doesnt-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-3ae3daff7558

    http://curious.astro.cornell.e.....termediate

    Dr Sewell has been told this over and over and over again but he still chooses to get it wrong, for some reason. He certainly understands the underlying mathematics so there must be some other reason.

    From Wikipedia:

    There are two principal ways of formulating thermodynamics, (a) through passages from one state of thermodynamic equilibrium to another, and (b) through cyclic processes, by which the system is left unchanged, while the total entropy of the surroundings is increased. These two ways help to understand the processes of life. The thermodynamics of living organisms has been considered by many authors, such as Erwin Schrödinger, Léon Brillouin and Isaac Asimov.

    To a fair approximation, living organisms may be considered as examples of (b). Approximately, an animal’s physical state cycles by the day, leaving the animal nearly unchanged. Animals take in food, water, and oxygen, and, as a result of metabolism, give out breakdown products and heat. Plants take in radiative energy from the sun, which may be regarded as heat, and carbon dioxide and water. They give out oxygen. In this way they grow. Eventually they die, and their remains rot away, turning mostly back into carbon dioxide and water. This can be regarded as a cyclic process. Overall, the sunlight is from a high temperature source, the sun, and its energy is passed to a lower temperature sink, i.e. radiated into space. This is an increase of entropy of the surroundings of the plant. Thus animals and plants obey the second law of thermodynamics, considered in terms of cyclic processes.

    Furthermore, the ability of living organisms to grow and increase in complexity, as well as to form correlations with their environment in the form of adaption and memory, is not opposed to the second law – rather, it is akin to general results following from it: Under some definitions, an increase in entropy also results in an increase in complexity, and for a finite system interacting with finite reservoirs, an increase in entropy is equivalent to an increase in correlations between the system and the reservoirs.

    Living organisms may be considered as open systems, because matter passes into and out from them. Thermodynamics of open systems is currently often considered in terms of passages from one state of thermodynamic equilibrium to another, or in terms of flows in the approximation of local thermodynamic equilibrium. The problem for living organisms may be further simplified by the approximation of assuming a steady state with unchanging flows. General principles of entropy production for such approximations are subject to an unsettled current debate or research.

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    I tried one of your links and got this …

    It’s a mistake to assume that the Rubik’s Cube example is an allegory for the emergence of life. That’s not the point, here, at all. This is a classic creationist way to look at the problem —resulting from the belief that life was created in a single step — but that theory isn’t physically accurate.

    Life did not emerge all at once; it came along over many millions of years, via many, many intermediate steps, each of which was a slight modification of a previous state. Each of these intermediate steps was itself a microstate that was reachable by a random walk from the state immediately preceding it. It took many, many steps to ultimately build even basic life (bacteria), and many, many, many more steps have happened since then to ultimately build the vastly complex forms of life which exist today. These systems did not appear instantaneously, they evolved slowly over hundreds of millions of years. There were lots of steps involved.

    I invite you to review this video which gives a solid response to the above speculation:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/film-premieres-today-cell-membranes-as-a-challenge-in-the-origin-of-life/

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, I seriously don’t think you should be trying to defend the validity of Darwinian evolution against the second law of thermodynamics.

    The two are simply, more or less, diametrically opposed to one another.

    One, the second law, holds that things will inexorably progress towards disorder. The other, Darwinian evolution, holds that things will progressively progress to greater and greater levels of order.

    The former has a mountain of evidence supporting it. The latter has a mountain of evidence against it.

    For instance

    The Human Gene Mutation Database
    The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease.
    Deleterious Mutation total (as of April 5, 2022) – 352,731
    http://www.hgmd.cf.ac.uk/ac/

    Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy – Dr John Sanford – 7 March 2013
    Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.].
    African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!
    http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution – Michael Behe – 2019
    Excerpt: Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.
    https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves-Science-Challenges-Evolution/dp/0062842617

    Michael Behe: Darwin Devolves – Science Uprising Expert Interview
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTtLEJABbTw

    Obviously JVL, this mountain of empirical evidence showing that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious is NOT good news for your claim that Darwinian evolution is, basically, impervious to the second law’s relentless tendency to drive things towards disorder.

    Psalm 102:25-27
    “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.”

    Isaiah 51:6:
    “The earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner.”

    “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’….
    Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’”
    Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

  15. 15
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, I seriously don’t think you should be trying to defend the validity of Darwinian evolution against the second law of thermodynamics.

    I let the authors of the webpages I linked to point out that unguided evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are not at odds with each other. This is a view held by the vast majority of physicists, chemists, etc. You may disagree but you’ll have to do a lot of math to make your case.

    One, the second law, holds that things will inexorably progress towards disorder. The other, Darwinian evolution, holds that things will progressively progress to greater and greater levels of order.

    The disorder increases over the whole system in question; there are pockets or instances of greater order. One of the pages I linked to used a analogy of shuffling and dealing playing cards. Shuffling is a disordering process but that doesn’t mean you won’t sometimes get dealt a straight flush which is highly ordered.

    Obviously JVL, this mountain of empirical evidence showing that mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious is NOT good news for your claim that Darwinian evolution is, basically, impervious to the second law’s relentless tendency to drive things towards disorder.

    I agree, most mutations are deleterious which is why I think many, many human pregnancies spontaneously abort; there is something so wrong that the foetus isn’t viable and ‘dies’ quite early on. There may be even more such events than we know; not many women will report a late period followed by a particularly heavy menstruation. Could be another spontaneous abortion.

    By the time a life form has reached the reproduction age when it can pass on its genetic library it has already leapt over many hurdles whereas other individuals have fallen by the wayside. For some life forms most of their live births get killed or die way before they get a chance to reproduce. Life is an extremely wasteful process. Much of it is chaotic and poorly formed and quickly turns into food or fertiliser.

    Anyway, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as long as you consider the entire system; i.e. the earth is not a closed system, the sun pummels it with energy every single day.

    By the way, before you decide who is right and who is wrong perhaps you should make sure you understand the actual mathematical law you are referring to, one statement of which is the following:

    T x dS = ?Q

    In that statement, what does the d stand for? What does the ? stand for? [The ? should be a small Greek letter delta but this particular installation of WordPress isn’t configured to represent such things. That could be corrected of course; I won’t hold my breath.]

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL states:

    I let the authors of the webpages I linked to point out that unguided evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are not at odds with each other. This is a view held by the vast majority of physicists, chemists, etc. You may disagree but you’ll have to do a lot of math to make your case.

    No I don’t, as far as empirical science is concerned, I just have to point to the empirical evidence,. (and in this case, I just have to point to the fact that it is now known that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious to show that Darwinian evolution does not get a free pass in regards to the second law)

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 –
    Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford
    In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,,
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0010

    Moreover JVL, you appealing to a consensus of scientists, as you have now done, instead of appealing to any supporting empirical evidence, is ‘the first refuge of scoundrels’

    “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
    Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
    – Michael Crichton – 2003

    JVL then goes on to agree with me that most mutations are now known to be deleterious, In fact he said, “I agree, most mutations are deleterious which is why I think many, many human pregnancies spontaneously abort”

    So JVL apparently agrees that the empirical evidence itself supports my position not his. Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned it is, or it should be, ‘case closed’.

    But JVL is apparently impervious to the fact that empirical evidence has the last word in empirical science, So JVL then goes on to claim, “Anyway, evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as long as you consider the entire system; i.e. the earth is not a closed system, the sun pummels it with energy every single day.”

    So, JVL’s reasoning, (in so far as it can even be termed ‘reasoning’), seems to be, “no matter that the overwhelming rate of mutations is now known to be deleterious, the earth is an open system and it is constantly receiving energy from the sun and thus the second law does not apply to the earth, and/or to life on earth.”

    Well, first off, the second law was discovered right here on earth. So apparently the earth, just because it is an ‘open system’, is not as ‘unconcerned’ with the second law as JVL’s simple minded ‘reasoning’ would seem to imply at first glance.

    Secondly, just pouring raw energy into a ‘open system’ actually accelerates the rate in which a system deteriorates.

    The following video, at the 46 minute mark, clearly illustrates that just pouring raw energy into a ‘open system’ actually accelerates the rate in which a system deteriorates

    Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation – Thomas Kindell (46:39 minute mark) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1yto0-z2bQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=2799

    Moreover, the energy that is allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum:

    8:12 minute mark,,, “These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.”
    Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) – video (2016) –
    https://youtu.be/NIwZqDkrj9I?t=384

    As the preceding video highlighted, visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the earth’s magnetic shield and the earth’s atmosphere.
    The size of light’s wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, strongly indicate that they were tailor-made for each other:

    The visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (~1 micron) is the most intense radiation from the sun (Figure 1); has the greatest biological utility (Figure 2); and easily passes through atmosphere of Earth (Figure 3) and water (Figure 4) with almost no absorption. It is uniquely this same wavelength of radiation that is idea to foster the chemistry of life. This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design.
    – (Walter Bradley – Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe – –
    http://www.leaderu.com/offices.....dence.html

    Moreover, even though the energy that is allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, that still does not fully negate the disordering effects of pouring raw energy into an open system, (as was referenced in the preceding Thomas Kindell video).

    In order to offset this disordering effect that pouring raw energy into an open system has, the raw energy from the sun must be further ‘refined’ to be of biological utility. This is accomplished by photosynthesis which converts sunlight into ATP.

    To say that photosynthesis defies Darwinian explanations is to make a dramatic understatement:

    Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin:
    The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....5610a.html

    Evolutionist Has Another Honest Moment as “Thorny Questions Remain” – Cornelius Hunter – July 2012
    Excerpt: It’s a chicken and egg question. Scientists are in disagreement over what came first — replication, or metabolism. But there is a third part to the equation — and that is energy. … You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed?
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....oment.html

    Of related note: ATP synthase is ‘unexpectedly’ found to be, thermodynamically, 100% efficient

    Your Motor/Generators Are 100% Efficient – October 2011
    Excerpt: ATP synthase astounds again. The molecular machine that generates almost all the ATP (molecular “energy pellets”) for all life was examined by Japanese scientists for its thermodynamic efficiency. By applying and measuring load on the top part that synthesizes ATP, they were able to determine that one cannot do better at getting work out of a motor,,, The article was edited by noted Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum, Howard Berg.
    http://crev.info/content/11101.....generators

    Of note: ‘100% efficiency’ far outclasses any man-made machine.

    Thus in conclusion, in spite of the fact that JVL blatantly ignored the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, and appealed to the fact that the earth is an ‘open system’ to try to claim that Darwinian evolution does not, (more or less), directly contradict the second law, the fact of the matter is that the earth being an ‘open system’ does not alleviate Darwin’s insurmountable problem with the second law in the least. Not one iota. JVL can appeal to as many mathematical equations as he wants and it is still not going to change the fact that it is the empirical evidence itself that is, overwhelmingly, showing him to be dead wrong.

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to the good.

  17. 17
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: No I don’t, as far as empirical science is concerned, I just have to point to the empirical evidence,. (and in this case, I just have to point to the fact that it is now known that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious to show that Darwinian evolution does not get a free pass in regards to the second law)

    You seem strangely confused. I agreed that most mutations are deleterious. You seem more focused on disagreeing with me than with having an actual conversation. Curious.

    Moreover JVL, you appealing to a consensus of scientists, as you have now done, instead of appealing to any supporting empirical evidence, is ‘the first refuge of scoundrels’

    I’m very happy with the empirical evidence. You choose to pick certain interpretations of the empirical evidence. BUT, if you consider ALL the evidence and all the opinions and weigh them based on frequency then where do you get?

    So JVL apparently agrees that the empirical evidence itself supports my position not his. Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned it is, or it should be, ‘case closed’.

    To the contrary, the fact that most mutations are deleterious points to an undesigned, uncontrolled, unfocused process. Put another way: IF the whole thing was designed then why is there so much waste? I think the better answer is that it’s not designed or planned.

    Well, first off, the second law was discovered right here on earth. So apparently the earth, just because it is an ‘open system’, is not as ‘unconcerned’ with the second law as JVL’s simple minded ‘reasoning’ would seem to imply at first glance.

    hahahahahahah. Sorry. You really don’t understand the mathematics and laws as they are postulated. What you said makes no sense at all. The earth is ‘not as unconcerned with the second law’? hahahahahahahahahhahahah

    Secondly, just pouring raw energy into a ‘open system’ actually accelerates the rate in which a system deteriorates.

    Another example of how you don’t really understand the mathematics or the physics that you are trying to discuss. You should give it up because you are just embarrassing yourself.

    Moreover, the energy that is allowed to enter the atmosphere of the Earth is constrained, i.e. finely-tuned, to 1 trillionth of a trillionth of the entire electromagnetic spectrum:

    You keep trying to repeat things you think are pertinent but you keep missing the actual point. You really should stop embarrassing yourself.

    As the preceding video highlighted, visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist on earth. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the “most permitted” portion of the sun’s spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the earth’s magnetic shield and the earth’s atmosphere.

    Sounds like life finely-tuned itself to the conditions given. So?

    Thus in conclusion, in spite of the fact that JVL blatantly ignored the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, and appealed to the fact that the earth is an ‘open system’ to try to claim that Darwinian evolution does not, (more or less), directly contradict the second law, the fact of the matter is that the earth being an ‘open system’ does not alleviate Darwin’s insurmountable problem with the second law in the least.

    Yes it does! You don’t understand the actual statement of the second law of thermodynamics. You’ve got the whole thing wrong because you are trying too hard to push a particular conclusion instead of looking at the actual evidence.

    Plus, clearly, you do not understand the underlying mathematics. Which means you, personally, cannot properly evaluate some of the arguments. Which means that you, personally, are just choosing who to believe based on whether or not they support your pre held view.

    And that’s not science is it?

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Sorry, I just want to savour, again, what Bornagain77 said above:

    Well, first off, the second law was discovered right here on earth. So apparently the earth, just because it is an ‘open system’, is not as ‘unconcerned’ with the second law as JVL’s simple minded ‘reasoning’ would seem to imply at first glance.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, I am quite satisfied to let the scientific evidence that I have cited, particularly the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, (which you yourself agreed with), speak for itself.

    Darwinian evolution is simply a non-starter as far as biology and the second law are concerned. Period.

    You can claim to be wise all you want, and that I just don’t understand the second law, or evolution, or whatever. Yet, the empirical evidence itself could care less about your false bravado

    Romans 1:22
    Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

    When Darwin’s Foundations Are Crumbling, What Will the (Darwinian) Faithful Do?
    Excerpt: Here’s a summation of the evolutionary picture that has emerged, according to Behe (in his new book “Darwin Devolves”:
    • The large majority of mutations are degradatory, meaning they’re mutations in which the gene is broken or blunted. Genetic information has been lost, not gained.
    • Sometimes the degradation helps an organism survive.
    • When the degradation confers a survival advantage, the mutation spreads throughout the population by natural selection.
    In genetics, a loss of information generally translates into a loss of function, so it might seem counterintuitive to suppose that a degradatory mutation would confer a survival advantage. Behe gives several examples, though, of instances where damaged genes have been shown to aid survival. In the case of the sickle-cell gene, for example, a single amino acid change causes hemoglobin to behave in a way that inhibits growth of the malaria microbe. It’s a loss-of-function mutation, but it confers a survival advantage in malaria-prone regions.
    The upshot of all this is that Darwin was right in believing that natural selection operating on random variations can cause organisms to become adapted to their environments, but he was wrong in believing that the process was constructive. Nowhere has the Darwinian mechanism been shown to build a complex system. It has only been shown to modify an already-existing system, usually in a loss-of-function manner.
    This is significant enough to upend the Darwinian narrative, but it gets worse. The same factors that contribute to adaptation work to prevent a species from evolving much further. Random mutation and natural selection quickly adjust species to their environmental niches, Behe writes, and then they maroon them there. He cites results from the long-running experiment conducted by Michigan State microbiologist Richard Lenski, whose E. coli lineage has surpassed 65,000 generations (equivalent to more than a million years for a large, complex species like humans), as sound evidence that random mutations wreak havoc in a species—and then that havoc gets frozen in place by natural selection.
    Behe sums up his main argument like this: “beneficial degradative mutations will rapidly, relentlessly, unavoidably, outcompete beneficial constructive mutations at every time and population scale.”1 The only Darwinian examples of evolution that have been observed have followed this pattern and resulted in evolutionary dead ends. Darwin devolves.,,,,
    https://salvomag.com/article/salvo49/darwinism-dissembled

    JVL, no matter how smart he claims to be, simply has no empirical evidence that he can appeal to to support his claim that life is not in the relentless grip of what John Sanford has termed ‘genetic entropy’.

  20. 20
    asauber says:

    JVL is Steamrolling, a tried-and-true Troll maneuver.

    Andrew

  21. 21
    asauber says:

    “To the contrary, the fact that most mutations are deleterious points to an undesigned, uncontrolled, unfocused process.”

    JVL,

    It points the other way. You can’t go from organized and functional to disorganized and degraded without starting from organized and functional.

    Andrew

  22. 22
    asauber says:

    God didn’t design everything around to last forever. He put in a dying process for that. Wise design, I say.

    Andrew

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, I am quite satisfied to let the scientific evidence that I have cited, particularly the overwhelming rate of deleterious mutations, (which you yourself agreed with), speak for itself.

    Good, ’cause that means you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

    Darwinian evolution is simply a non-starter as far as biology and the second law are concerned. Period.

    Not as far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned as agreed upon by almost every physicist and chemist you can find. But, of course, you’re not actually interested in all the data, just that which agrees with your biased view NOT based on a real understanding of the mathematics involved. Yeah, I noticed you couldn’t answer my question. So did a lot of other people I bet.

    You can claim to be wise all you want, and that I just don’t understand the second law, or evolution, or whatever. Yet, the empirical evidence itself could care less about your false bravado

    If you did understand the mathematics then why didn’t you answer my very basic question about it? It’s because you don’t understand even the clear mathematical statement of the second law of thermodynamics. You just troll around for opinions that match yours, clips and paste them Into you database of references and you think you’re doing science. But you’re not. A real person of faith would just admit it. A real person of faith would be proud of the fact that faith is the basis of their view. But you think you have to wrap your faith in a false understanding of science and that that should make you even more pious. It just makes you look misguided and foolish.

    JVL, no matter how smart he claims to be, simply has no empirical evidence that he can appeal to to support his claim that life is not in the relentless grip of what John Sanford has termed ‘genetic entropy’.

    What kind of faith requires a complete distortion and misunderstanding of the science? What is a man of faith who lies thinking they are doing good? The poison of the the lying and deceit rots their faith from the inside, turning them into mirrors of the evil they want to fight. The way to the kingdom isn’t through deceit and untruth. If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Asuaber: JVL is Steamrolling, a tried-and-true Troll maneuver.

    Gee, can you answer my question about the second law of thermodynamics? See above.

    It points the other way. You can’t go from organized and functional to disorganized and degraded without starting from organized and functional.

    I think the whole process was unplanned, unorganised and spontaneous from the start. Yes, most mutations are deleterious, that explains the high number of still births and spontaneous abortions in humans. That explains why some species creates vast numbers of offspring only to have most of them get taken by predation. That explains why many of us get nasty and horrible diseases, some of which are fatal. Life is a wasteful and indifferent process.

    God didn’t design everything around to last forever. He put in a dying process for that. Wise design, I say.

    Fine. You should be happy then when you die of cancer or COVID or diabetes or the flu or Ebola or Whooping cough or Malaria or Tetanus or an earthquake or a flood or a lightning strike or ever. It’s all part of God’s plan. A plan that hasn’t been explained to me, a plan that no one knows, a plan that I can only hope is for the best. Praise God for pain and suffering and death. It’s all part of the plan.

    Why did God punish Adam and Eve for partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Why did God then punish all of us, apparently for their sin? We’re not supposed to ask and question and try to find out certain things? But Christianity is supposed to be the faith of science. As long as you don’t question certain things I guess.

  25. 25
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Bornagain77
    JVL, no matter how smart he claims to be, simply has no empirical evidence that he can appeal to to support his claim that life is not in the relentless grip of what John Sanford has termed ‘genetic entropy’.

    🙂 The Human Genome Project has written down all the hieroglyphics from genome. . Ok,what does it mean ? Many people believe that to print a dictionary of cryptograms is as if they already decryped the code. Nothing more false. How we will know when the scientists will decrypt genome? No new experiment will be required.

    Gee, can you answer my question about the second law of thermodynamics? See above.

    First find the rock under which some chemicals+physical laws run homeostasis for the first time before proceeding with multiplication for the very first time obviously. Then I would say :”This is a miracle!” 😆

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: I am also quite satisfied to let your evidence-free, fallacious ‘appeal to authority’, fallacious ‘ad hominem’, as well as incoherent rambling, speak for itself. 🙂

    Let’s make this real simple for you JVL. You claim that the second law is no big hurdle for evolution.

    Okie Dokie, how about you demonstrating just one single functional protein overcoming the second law and originating purely by chance?

    Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

    Also of note:

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
    Of note: Harold Joseph Morowitz (Yale) was an American biophysicist who studied the application of thermodynamics to living systems. Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays. The origin of life was his primary research interest for more than fifty years.

    Synthesizing Life in the Laboratory: Why is it not Happening? –by George T. Javor – July 26, 2021
    Excerpt: Even though in living cells each reaction is pushed toward equilibrium by an enzyme (so as to forestall the possibility of slower, random non-biological chemical events), if any of the hundreds to thousands of chemical processes could actually reach equilibrium, an irreversible metabolic block would result. Multiple such equilibriums would kill the cell. However, in live cells there are no isolated reactions and the problem of equilibrium is avoided. Rather, chemical events are linked into pathways, so that the products of reactions do not accumulate, but immediately react with another substance.
    The end products of metabolic pathways are either utilized immediately or they are secreted from the cell. Moreover, regulatory systems such as “feedback inhibition” help maintain homeostasis.,,,
    Building artificial cells in a modular fashion will inevitably result in the onset of chemical equilibrium within each module. Once equilibrium is reached, the artificial cell, figuratively speaking, “runs into a brick wall”. It is no longer capable of growth or accomplish any net chemical process.,,
    Until the construction of cell-like structures harboring metabolisms in homeostatic non-equilibrium states become reality, the most sophisticated efforts of synthetic biology will come to naught.
    https://www.grisda.org/synthesizing-life-in-the-lab?mc_cid=5a79992abf

    Thermodynamic Challenges to the Origin of Life – Brian Miller – March 27, 2020
    Excerpt: The thermodynamic barriers to the origin of life have become decidedly more well defined since this book’s first publication. The initial challenges described in the original edition still stand. Namely, spontaneous natural processes always tend toward states of greater entropy, lower energy, or both. The change of entropy and energy are often combined into the change of free energy, and all spontaneous processes move toward lower free energy. However, the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy. Therefore, it must move toward dramatically higher free energy. The chance of a system accomplishing this feat near equilibrium is astronomically small.
    Many origin-of-life researchers have responded to this challenge by arguing that a system driven far from equilibrium could self-organize into a functional cell through processes that are connected to such monikers as complex systems, emergence, synergetics, or nonequilibrium dissipative systems. The basic hope is that some new physical principles could overcome the barriers to life’s origin mandated by classical thermodynamics. However, advances in nonequilibrium thermodynamics have proven that the odds of a system driven far from equilibrium generating an autonomous cell are no greater than the odds for one near equilibrium.
    Others have proposed that “natural engines” on the early Earth converted one form of energy into another that could drive a local system to sufficiently high free energy. These approaches have proven equally disappointing. The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/03/thermodynamic-challenges-to-the-origin-of-life/

  27. 27
    asauber says:

    “You should be happy then when you die of cancer or COVID or diabetes or the flu or Ebola or Whooping cough or Malaria or Tetanus or an earthquake or a flood or a lightning strike or ever.”

    JVL,

    I *should* be happy when I die, in whatever fashion it happens. But with true Trollism, in considering my personal demise, you have gone way off topic.

    Andrew

  28. 28
    asauber says:

    “I think the whole process was unplanned, unorganised and spontaneous from the start.”

    JVL,

    So how did things get organized, and why?

    Andrew

  29. 29
    Silver Asiatic says:

    JVL

    Why did God punish Adam and Eve for partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Why did God then punish all of us, apparently for their sin? We’re not supposed to ask and question and try to find out certain things?

    Idle curiosity is something we should avoid. We also shouldn’t ask questions about how to commit evil (the knowledge of good and evil was what Satan gave them).
    God wants us to thrive and to grow in knowledge of what is good. Considering that all things belong to Him and He is the source of all knowledge, He’s not hiding anything that is good for us.

Leave a Reply