Not when they misrepresent the actual science with the falsehood “this supports ID!!” which they do with virtually every new scientific discovery.
2 Likes
Can you point us to the physics textbook where it says we can violate the laws of thermodynamics if we happen to have the right environments, populations, reproductive systems, genomes, and metabolic systems?
However, the laws of thermodynamics allow for a decrease in entropy when energy is added to a system.
The theory of evolution is silent on the origin of life. If the first simple replicators were specially created by God then that wouldn’t change anything in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is focused on how life changed, not it’s ultimate origin.
2 Likes
This is the standard creationist addition to thermodynamics, said as if it’s actually part of the science.
1 Like
I agree but then it is not really fair to smear an entire scientific field (nor the scientists who wrote a much more reasonable publication) for the behavior of attention-grabbing news-site editors trying to generate clicks in a competitive market full of sexualized advertisements, violence, and political scandals.
4 Likes
If come across a specific article let me know. I will also look for this behavior.
Well no. The origin of life is a phase of evolutionary history. It is a crucial step in the process of the entire biosphere arising spontaneously. The origin of life is typically included in Biology textbooks (e.g., in the “Evolution” chapter). These textbooks are written and reviewed by leading evolutionists. The National Academy of Sciences includes the origin of life in its coverage of evolution. Evolutionists have scientific journals on the origin of life. They write books and articles on the origin of life.
Yes, we were, and the origin of life is part of evolution. In fact, evolutionists sometimes push difficult problems into the origin of life category, while maintaining that all of evolution is a fact, but saying they don’t have to explain the origin of life part because it is “not evolution.” Not only is this is game-playing, but it doesn’t help the problems with later evolution. For example, the evolution of epigenetics, or the giraffe, or proteins, are unlikely. If we say that this was all set up in the origin of life phase, then we haven’t resolved the problem, we’ve merely moved it, and given it another label. We now have the problem of how the origin of life phase could have set that up.
And notice that evolutionists don’t express the fact the origin of life goes against the empirical science. Even the paper I mentioned above, that put the probability of a reproducing system arising at less than 10^-1000, would not say that. Instead, it used its result as evidence for the multi-verse. This is what the Epicureanisms attempted. When something is impossible (10^-1000 would be considered to be beyond what would qualify as “impossible”), evolutionists claim there must be an astronomical number of universes.
Yes, indeed. So they require the Sun’s energy. They also arise as a consequence of the Coriolis effect, so they need a spinning planet, its atmosphere, oceans, etc. You could have cited a far more powerful example of entropic barriers being overcome in nature: protein folding. Earlier you cited plant growth. Same thing. As I explained above, all of these examples are “set up.” They are dependent on an ordered environment to be in place, to enable them to occur. They do not serve your purpose of evidence for spontaneous origin because they themselves require an ordered environment to be in place.
Not “just” energy. That was my point–energy is necessary, but not sufficient. You need luck, such that what, according to science, is impossible could happen. Or a multiverse. It is difficult for us humans to appreciate this problem: the number of unordered configurations astronomically dwarfs ordered configurations, by orders of orders of magnitude. That is an enormous entropy barrier, and extremely difficult to find.
People have been discussing and disagreeing on these subjects for thousands of years. I don’t expect that to change. But hope it is abundantly obvious that the evolutionist’s certainty, and claim that evolution is a fact, is not from the empirical evidence.
1 Like
It’s the start of evolutionary history. The Big Bang model is different from the Big Bang event itself. Evolutionary theory is different from the origin of life. They may be intimately connected but they deal with different things.
2 Likes
Who’s saying that?
Now it seems you at moving the goal posts to
Some type of Geological fine-tuning
If the first life was created by God and all life evolved from that first life, then nothing in the theory of evolution would need to be changed. Evolution doesn’t require abiogenesis.
5 Likes