Vitamin C and Creationism.

Originally posted by chinking58
[b]The chances of both chimpanzees and humans independantly recieving the same viral fragments in the same locations is beyond reasonable chance

Ooops. (A good evolutionist never refers to probability. Doing so reminds the fundies of one of our greatest weaknesses. The idea that something is improbable, even to the point of being as close to impossible as you can get, must be ignored at all costs!)[/b]

A good evolutionist never refers to probabilities? Why not? Some things can be described probabilistically and some cannot. As long as the evolutionist is knowledgeable about when it is appropriate to use probabilities I don't see why he/she should refrain.

I hope you are not starting the "evolution is impossible" line. I thought we had set you straight that creationists should avoid using it as an argument by demonstrating to you how probabilities work. I really wish creationist would be honest. Sometimes I feel like they argue like lawyers: the truth of the argument is not so important as the result that the argument has.

Chinking, you are good person. Please let's only use arguments that we believe are valid.

Originally posted by chinking58
I'm reminded of a geology professor I had who enjoyed pushing evolutionary bias on our classes. One of his ideas was to use the overhead projector (Who knows what that is?) to compare various skeletons of hands. They all had 5 fingers, knuckles etc. He never said so, but all of the critters represented there also had circulatory, repiratory, excretory ...[text shortened]... used them, along with His own ingenius blueprints, to build an incredible variety of creatures!

But why would God, in all his power and glory, use such a limited amount of supplies then? A being of his fabled power would be able to create and unlimited amount of supplies to build all his little creatures with. Why would God bother using so few common elements for so many varied purposes when he could create the perfect element/supply for each individual purpose?!

If this world was created by an almighty powerful being, then why is it so flawed in it's design. If you're right and the big G did create everything in his image, than he must be flawed too!

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
But why would God, in all his power and glory, use such a limited amount of supplies then? A being of his fabled power would be able to create and unlimited amount of supplies to build all his little creatures with. Why would God ...[text shortened]... G did create everything in his image, than he must be flawed too!

Good questions.

But your first question is more appropriate in the reverse case.
If God had used an 'unlimited amount of supplies', you would be the first to ask 'Why would God bother using so many elements, when far fewer were required?' wouldn't you DS? And this other question would make more sense. You used the word 'bother'. It seems to me that it would be much more 'bother' to use a larger variety of material than a smaller. (Not that anything can challenge God's capabilities.)

Besides, what do we do when we want to test someone's resourcefullness? Like in a boy scout camp, or in training Navy Seals. We drop soldiers off in the forest or the desert with nothing but a knife, a cup of water, maybe a bite sized Snickers bar and see if they can survive and come back with fifty prisoners in tow! The more you can do with less, the more respectable you are.

I believe that when God created the world originally, it's beauty and perfection were beyond anything we can imagine! The flaws, according to Christian doctrine, entered the system after Adam and Eve disobeyed God's clear instruction. The real wonder is in observing that there is still so much beauty and livability remaining in the earth today.

By the way, the only thing God created in His image was Man and Woman. But we have consistently chosen to be unlike Him, rather than imitate Him. And to be unlike perfection is to be flawed.

Originally posted by telerion
A good evolutionist never refers to probabilities? Why not? Some things can be described probabilistically and some cannot. As long as the evolutionist is knowledgeable about when it is appropriate to use probabilities I don't see why he/she should refrain.

I hope you are not starting the "evolution is impossible" line. I thought we had set you st ...[text shortened]...
Chinking, you are good person. Please let's only use arguments that we believe are valid.

I was being very tongue and cheek here buddy. You guys can use probability all you want.

Are you referring to that whole thread about the lottery etc.? If so, I think I agreed then that I shouldn't have claimed that probability has disproven the possibility of evolution; but I would never withdraw the argument that it sure makes evolution unlikely!

Somebody gave a big lesson on coin flipping but I never did address that. It seems to me, (and that's all I have to offer) is that the question is not how often the coin comes up heads or tails, but rather, how often the coin lands and stands on edge. Yes, even that can happen. But how often can it happen in a windstorm of entropy?

I am still to be convinced that my arguments are invalid bud, sorry.

Originally posted by chinking58
I was being very tongue and cheek here buddy. You guys can use probability all you want.

Are you referring to that whole thread about the lottery etc.? If so, I think I agreed then that I shouldn't have claimed that probability has disproven the possibility of evolution; but I would never withdraw the argument that it sure makes evolution unlikely! ...[text shortened]... indstorm of entropy?

I am still to be convinced that my arguments are invalid bud, sorry.

What the hell does it mean to say that "probability...makes evolution unlikely?". Have you actually presented an argument to this effect? If so, where? If you don't remember where, could you reconstruct the argument here? I'd love to see the premises of an argument that shows that "probability" weighs against evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by bbarr
You misunderstand the nature of the second law of thermodynamics. The tendency to entropy obtains only in closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, as it is constantly inundated with energy from the Sun. Further, even if the Earth was a closed system, order could increase in certain locations if offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. ...[text shortened]... n employed in fallacious arguments against evolution (e.g., the "evolving junkyard" argument).

So bbud, I guess in your sense then, there is no closed system?
I'm tempted to expand my vision to the solar system, but you would point out that with the rest of the Milky way in existence, the SS is not a closed system either, so I won't go that route.

According to the laws of heat transfer, a body of air should not rise in temperature above 32 degrees F until all snow or ice is melted. But that is only true in a closed system. The earth being a very open system, we often have warm air over a snow field. But, within this vast open system are many smaller closed systems. The ice in my glass generally stays frozen until the lemonade is warmed up to 32.

All this to say that the kinds of developmental variations required for evolution to take place would naturally occur within very tiny locale; a closed system, for all intents and purposes. An area probably removed from any introduction of useful energy from the sun, but totally exposed to the energy disipating effect of entropy. A place where disorder increasing would be the expected result.

As far as the idea of an entropy offset program, wouldn't the overall effect still be to increase disorder on the larger scale? If I were being threatened by wave after wave of pennies I might offset the drowning by exchanging every 500 for a five dollar bill, but eventually I would smother in the deluge of paper cash! (How's that for a dreamy metaphor?)

The fact of increasing disorder in the world, is very real and cannot simply be dismissed along with the attached implications.

Originally posted by bbarr
What the hell does it mean to say that "probability...makes evolution unlikely?". Have you actually presented an argument to this effect? If so, where? If you don't remember where, could you reconstruct the argument here? I'd love to see the premises of an argument that shows that "probability" weighs against evolutionary theory.

Am I wrong in the idea that evolution requires thousands and thousands of random and positive mutations while at the same time avoiding any random negative mutations?

Originally posted by chinking58
Am I wrong in the idea that evolution requires thousands and thousands of random and positive mutations while at the same time avoiding any random negative mutations?

yep, quite wrong. Negative mutations simply die, leaving no genes to the next generation, and there has been literally thousands of mutations, remember life is more than 500 millions years old.

Originally posted by nickybutt
yep, quite wrong. Negative mutations simply die, leaving no genes to the next generation, and there has been literally thousands of mutations, remember life is more than 500 millions years old.

the 500 million idea is only supposed, in order to allow for the work of random mutation.

Originally posted by nickybutt
Sure thing!

A common Creationist approach to this sort of claim is that humans were created perfect but degenerated via microevolution. That is, humans used to be able to make Vitamin C, but lost that ability. The presence of a 'broken' Vitamic C gene supports this hypothesis.

Originally posted by chinking58
the 500 million idea is only supposed, in order to allow for the work of random mutation.

what do you mean by supposed, there is plenty of evidence stating that life began on Earth more than 500 million years ago.

Originally posted by chinking58
Are you suggesting that our bodies should be designed to produce everything we need?

Why?

They don't produce water, air, sunlight or doughnuts!
My point is that the things we needed were all provided for us, if not from the insid ...[text shortened]... s to inhabit suggests that they were well provided with vitamin C.

I would suggest a human body which could create air, water, doughnuts etc. would be superior to the one we have now. Even if we have all these things, it's still possible to deny them to someone. A body in which this was not possible would be superior.

His claim was the same one nickybutt is making: Similarity in form indicates common evolutionary ancestry. My creationist answer was the same as dj's: similar design is more likely explained by a common designer....If God had used an 'unlimited amount of supplies', you would be the first to ask 'Why would God bother using so many elements, when far fewer were required?' wouldn't you...?

This is a flawed argument. Humans have a style only because we have limited knowledge and power. For example, a company which knows how to make a certain kind of car inside and out would do better to work with the technology they are already intimately familiar with than to try something entirely new. God theoretically should not have this limitation.

So bbud, I guess in your sense then, there is no closed system?

This is correct, though there are systems that approximate being closed.

All this to say that the kinds of developmental variations required for evolution to take place would naturally occur within very tiny locale; a closed system, for all intents and purposes. An area probably removed from any introduction of useful energy from the sun, but totally exposed to the energy disipating effect of entropy. A place where disorder increasing would be the expected result.

This is totally wrong. Evolution can take place in direct sunlight! You are utterly misrepresenting the TOE.

As far as the idea of an entropy offset program

Bbarr did not use the word "program". However the idea that entropy does increase is totally compatible with the Second Law. Entropy leaves the Earth in the form of heat, so entropy is constantly lbeing taken out of the Earth as a whole. This is one example of how the entropy of the universe can increase while localized open systems on the Earth can have an entropy decrease. Sunlight is another way of decreasing entropy on Earth. Your metaphor is apt; many physicists agree that we will all "smother in a deluge of...cash". They call it the concept of the "heat death" of the universe.

Am I wrong in the idea that evolution requires thousands and thousands of random and positive mutations while at the same time avoiding any random negative mutations?

Yes, you are wrong. First of all the macroevolution does not rely on concepts of "positive" and "negative" mutations, though these words are often tossed around to give a helpful intuitive idea of what's going on. In addition, the "negative" mutations far outweight the "positive" ones. Natural selection selects those which are "positive" - that's what makes them "positive".

the 500 million idea is only supposed, in order to allow for the work of random mutation.

Not true. Radioactive dating and other methods of dating fossils is how we came up with numbers like these. They fit in nicely with the models physicists and geologists have come up with.

Originally posted by chinking58
I believe that when God created the world originally, it's beauty and perfection were beyond anything we can imagine! The flaws, according to Christian doctrine, entered the system after Adam and Eve disobeyed God's clear instruction. ...[text shortened]... still so much beauty and livability remaining in the earth today.

So humans were created perfect but later became flawed? Then it is some coincident that chimpanzees received the exact same flaw wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by chinking58

So bbud, I guess in your sense then, there is no closed system?

First, my handle is bbarr, not bbud, so don't be a chump. Second, I never said that there are no closed systems. Please don't make an ass of yourself by attributing to me views I do not hold. Closed systems are those isolated from external energy transfer. I'm sure we could create a closed system, or near enough for whatever purposes, in the lab. Further, the universe itself is a closed system.

I'm tempted to expand my vision to the solar system, but you would point out that with the rest of the Milky way in existence, the SS is not a closed system either, so I won't go that route.

Why is this relevant to evolution. Evolution takes place on the Earth. The Earth is not a closed system, so your ramblings on entropy are immaterial to evolution.

According to the laws of heat transfer, a body of air should not rise in temperature above 32 degrees F until all snow or ice is melted. But that is only true in a closed system. The earth being a very open system, we often have warm air over a snow field. But, within this vast open system are many smaller closed systems. The ice in my glass generally stays frozen until the lemonade is warmed up to 32.

Right, the Earth is a vast open system, so your ramblings concerning entropy are immaterial to evolution. You know very well your lemonade glass is not a closed system, don't you? There may be some relatively closed systems here and there on Earth, for all I know (perhaps in the Earth's core, for instance), but this is irrelevant to evolution, as evolution takes place all over the Earth, on the plains, in the oceans, etc. These are not closed systems.

All this to say that the kinds of developmental variations required for evolution to take place would naturally occur within very tiny locale; a closed system, for all intents and purposes.

O.K., now it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. You have no idea what a closed system is.

An area probably removed from any introduction of useful energy from the sun, but totally exposed to the energy disipating effect of entropy. A place where disorder increasing would be the expected result.

LOL! Wow. Is there any need to finish reading your post? As I've told Telerion, there is not point discussing evolution with someone who is ignorant of basic science.

The fact of increasing disorder in the world, is very real and cannot simply be dismissed along with the attached implications

I'll just repost this: "...even if the Earth was a closed system, order could increase in certain locations if offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system." Ignoring this is the heart of your error.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I'd be very interested to hear how evolution explains this.

When our mammalian ancestors found themselves in position to eat lots of fruit with little competition compared to other food sources, those mammals which mutated to be able to do so better ate better and were therefore in general more likely to have babies which inhereted those mutations. Some examples of this would be our excellent color vision and our binocular vision which gives depth perception in a three dimensional environment like the tree canopy. Once our distant ancestors began eating lots of fruit they continued to adapt to that lifestyle. We developed the ability to brachiate, which is one influence on the development of our hands, and we lost dark vision, because night vision cells had to compete with color vision cells for space in the eye. We didn't need night vision anyway because we lived in the trees and there are almost no predators that clamber around trees going after sleeping monkeys. Likewise, our ancestor's bodies had a massive deluge of vitamin C, so a mutation which destroyed the enzyme which synthesized this vitamin became selected for; it was a "positive" mutation to break this enzyme in this context, since resources were needed to make those proteins which were now effectively useless.

...gene similarities between humans and chimps point towards a common designer...

I addressed this in my post to chinking. This argument only holds if you assume the designer has limited capabilities.