Feedback for December 1998

In considering the evolution of intelligence, one must take into account what kind of survival advantanges would be gained by it. More efficient hunting, better survival tactics against predators, better use of natural resources and environments, cultivation of grains, domestication of animals, establishment of settlements, etc.

There are reasons why smarter hominids would preferentially survive over dumber ones.

Why did hominids develop intelligence on a greater level than any other species? Consider the upright stance, which allowed hominids to more efficiently make and use tools and weapons, carry food back to a camp. And more efficient ways of hunting, gathering and storing food allows for more idle time in which to be creative. No other creature is fully bipedal. Consider with this the gradual increase in cranial capacity, which mirrors the development in toolmaking and culture.

The alternative- accepting that the first human was made directly from the dirt- requires quite a suspension of one's rational mental processes.

One must remember that we are dealing with a scientific field still in its infancy. At this point, the only scientific answer is to say, "We don't know yet."

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

Above is one of the definitions quoted with favor in Dr. Moran's FAQ. It is important to distinguish between the purpose of a definition and the purpose of a theory. A definition of evolution tells us which phenomena are evolutionary, and which are not. A theory of evolution explains some set of evolutionary phenomena, and proposes mechanisms or processes by which those phenomena arise.

Mr. Hawkins confuses definitions and theories. Dr. Moran is discussing definitions in his FAQ. I cannot concur that Dr. Moran has overlooked what we know of genetic transmission. The quote given above makes the point quite well that evolutionary changes are of necessity heritable changes. The particular mode of genetic transmission or genetic modification need not be known for us to be able to determine that evolutionary change has occurred.

Dr. Moran's article made no restriction concerning the processes that can result in evolutionary change. I'm not sure how Mr. Hawkins came to the erroneous conclusion that such a restriction was made in the article.

Wesley

But to blame science for the Piltdown Man hoax is far too severe. It was, after all, scientists who uncovered the hoax. It is not that science is subject to prejudice, but people are. With all the checks and balances with the modern methods of science, I have near complete faith in the process. They can't all be racist.

When an individual goes around touting his "doctorate" degree in a scientific field which he claims to have gotten from a "University", and it turns out he spent three weeks at a Ministry College operated out of someone's house, that fact, that deception, should be uncovered to the public! Those individuals (and here we are speaking about certain creationists) are experts in nothing. They object to evolution for non-scientific reasons. Their objections are based on their faith.

The truth is that at the conception of some living organisms, errors occur in the copying process of DNA. A small percentage of these "errors" can actually benefit the organism by making it more efficient in its survival- either in finding food, avoiding predators or finding a mate. These "errors" are then transmitted to the next generation, and those organisms head off in a different direction from the original species.

Evolution does not contradict any scientific laws- it only contradicts literal biblical dogma.

Are you suggesting that we throw out the science of evolutionary biology because, in your opinion, it amounts to a "license to control our destinies"?

That evolution is "just a theory" has got to be the most common fallacy I have ever heard. This incorrect statement usually arises from a confusion between the scientific words "theory" and "hypothesis". No one seems to call Atomic Theory "just a theory"... it gave us the atom bomb; no one calls Einstein's General and Special Theories of Relativity "just theories". Evolution is as well-established a concept as any in science, with a massive amount of physical evidence for support. It is not a guess.

This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:

"Is Evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. [What part of that last sentence excludes a theory from being a fact?] Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.

Why isn't evolution called a law?

Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science."

To say all possible origins of life must have a designer or purposer says more about you than it does about nature. If your largest reason for not accepting the truth of evolution is that you think it has no foundation, then you should read more about it. If the Talk.Origins Archive is too complex, might I suggest my site: The Evolution Education Resource Center.

A transition from "a" to "z" would be, to use your words, too severe. But a transition from "A" to "B", would not be too severe, nor would a transition from "B" to "C". In this way, you can have a gradual transition from "A" to "Z".

I'll use the Mudskipper as an example. Here is a fish that leaves its pond and pulls itself along with bony fins to feed on the muddy shore- yet it has no lungs. It keeps water in its mouth and extract oxygen from it, as well as absorbing oxygen through its moist skin. The Coelacanth also has muscular rigid fins- but no lungs. The Lungfish, on the other hand, does have primitive lungs, which it uses to survive for months out of water, but it does not have bony fins. When the pond in which it lives becomes oxygen-poor, the lungfish swims to the surface and takes a gulp of air. You can see the definate survival advantage of this trait.

All of the physical traits you mentioned evolved seperately and independently within the species in question, over millions of years. Remember that macroevolution is the cumulative effect of many such changes, one after another. One other important point is that mutation is only one mechanism of evolution. The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow. I suggest you read the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ.

1. Chance does take place in the universe, even in situations where we do know the correct laws governing an event. Events that take place at the level of quantum mechanics do so randomly, even though we understand the basics of those events. If you fire a barrage of electrons at a piece of cardboard with two holes, we can determine what fraction will go through one hole as opposed to the other; yet, it is not possible to predict which hole an individual electron will go through.

   That doesn't rule out the operation of a Supreme Being, by the way. See Loren Haarsma's Chance from a Theistic Perspective.

2. Perhaps the reader should check the book he cites (Climbing Mount Improbable) before making such an assertion. Page 134 shows a drawing of a flounder which hides on the ocean floor by lying on its side. Over the millenia, it has evolved so that it has both eyes on one side of its head.

   In general, though, many creatures exhibit symmetry, perhaps bilateral symmetry, but also multilateral, radial, and fractal. This is not so surprising, given (a) the increased simplicity and efficiency of duplicating parts of a design and (b) the common descent of life on Earth.

3. The reader takes Dawkins' quote out of context. Dawkins was not saying that engineers are more qualified than biologists for studying living creatures. He was making a point about principles of efficiency that lead evolved systems to appear as if they were designed, due to the constraints of the physical world.

A couple of comments on the issues.

Adult flounders have both eyes on one side of the head. Juveniles start out with the usual arrangement, but during ontogeny one eye migrates to the other side of the head. This causes some curious distortions of the morphology, which can be seen readily in some smaller flounder, like the "hogchoker" of the Gulf of Mexico.

The real answer is that the original assertion is mistaken. We do see mutations occur in extant species. But mutation does not mean "anything goes". Bits and pieces going any which way is not a general expectation. Bilateral symmetry is an anciently established morphology that is shared by descent. But we do have evidence of a "change" from bilateral symmetry in the Phylum Echinodermata. These organisms share the attribute of bilateral symmetry from their ancestry, but they have derived a radial symmetry in their body plan. Pick up a starfish and try to figure out which arm is apical. It is possible to do, but soemtimes can take a bit of observation.

Wesley

I would suggest that you learn about evolution from a source other than the creationists- the information they supply is incorrect.

Scientists do not "believe" in evolution so much as accept it as the inevitable and inescapable conclusion which is drawn from the evidence. Evolution is not a religion. Religion, as admitted by its adherents, does not change- it is an unchanging and inerrant guide. Evolution makes no such claim. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is immune to change) and makes no claims to being inerrant (as our methods and technology improve, so our theories more closely represent reality). Evolution remains to be the inference of the available evidence, whether you choose to accept it or not. Evolution is in no danger of being "overturned" by creationism.

To the claim that there are questions that evolutionists can't or wont answer, this is a falsehood that is perpetuated by creationists. I myself (a nonscientist) have answered their questions. See my answers to the Center for Scientific Creationism and my answers to Kent Hovind.

As to evidence that points to creationism, in truth there is only deception and self-delusion that points to creationism. See the General Anti-creationism FAQ, and the general T.O. FAQ.

Creationists have their literal biblical interpretation to protect, and are willing to say anything to do so. When Henry Morris (former president of the Intitute for Creation Research) says "There is no observational fact imaginable which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model." how can anyone trust the "science" of creationism?

Secondly, Eldredge and Gould's views were founded on two mechanisms - migration into the habitat that had been fossilised, accounting for a lack of in situ intermediates, and Mayr's "founder principle", the notion that small populations (with a low probability of fossiliation) do the most evolving, which Simpson's 1944 work did not have.

However, there are also probably some social reasons for Simpson's absence. In Time Frames, Eldredge makes up that lack, as I recall.

I don't address the history of the concepts in the essay, other than as history relates to other topics, like discussion of phyletic fgradualism. The fact of the matter is that "punctuated equilibria" is a neologism due to Eldredge and Gould, and there is an expectation that the persons referenced most often will be those who introduced the term, if not the concept. I may add a section on precursors to PE in a revision of the FAQ, but the purpose of the FAQ is more to summarize the concept of PE and related issues of interest to those examining the origins debate than it is to develop a history of the idea.

Eldredge and Gold also took a different approach from Simpson, stating that paleontology cannot provide the insights needed for interpretation of the evidence. Instead, neontology - the study of living organisms - should inform our theories of paleontology. Thus, Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation of peripheral isolates is the basis of PE according to Eldredge and Gould.

I certainly am not averse to saying that others utilized concepts with a substantial overlap with PE prior to Eldredge and Gould's 1972 chapter on the topic. But Eldredge and Gould do deserve credit for putting it all together, and by dint of both persistence and not a little apparent arrogance they have managed to move paleontology off dead center.

Wesley

The earth was molten for the majority of that first 1 billion years. Life probably evolved in the first 100 million years or less of the earth being cool enough.

There are not 50 billion types of cells in the human body, there are around 320 or so. Most of these are closely related subtypes, such as the haemopoietic cycle where some 35 partly or fully differentiated cell types develop from a single pluripotent stem cell. These cells develop over a relatively short time - nine months or so.

Once a complex cell has evolved, it can differentiate pretty quickly, I think you must agree...

You wouldn't say that creation is a fact "scientifically"... that's the point. Creation Science is not science. But it claims to be. If it is a fact only to you personally, that is a personal belief. Certainly it does not deserve 'equal time', as proponents of Creationism would like to see in our public schools.

Your four points of what constitutes a theory are very well thought out. But to hold the belief that evolution has not passed muster to be considered a proper scientific theory is to be unaware of the evidence. There is much information yet to digest. Check out the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ.

Speciation is a complex blend of reproductive factors, environmental pressures, genetic mutability, and population size. I suggest the reader consult both Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's The Great Human Diasporas: The History of Diversity and Evolution, excellent books discussing the spread of human genetic and societal diversity. Both also have references for further study.

Has the reader determined Life to be truthful because it accurately reflects reality in detail, or because it agrees with the reader's own particular viewpoint? Likewise, does the reader find scientific explanations to be "mis-speak" and "narrow-minded" because they fail to accurately reflect reality in detail, or because they disagree with the reader's own particular viewpoint? Before he answers that question for himself, I would urge the reader to consider the thousands of journals in any good university library that provide, at times, excruciatingly detailed observations of the world around us.

If the reader wishes to see a more comprehensive critique of Life, he need only examine the off-site article on the book by Jan Haugland.

Finally, I wonder if the reader really knows what he means by "transitional gaps." If he just means that some fossil sequences are incomplete or spotty, that is true, but it says less about evolution than about the process of fossilization. If, however, he is stating that there are no transitional fossil sequences, he would be incorrect, as the Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ, among other FAQs on this site, makes clear.

Biological evolution is dependent upon self-replicating systems. The development of self-replicating systems is the subject of abiogenesis. There are various theories concerning abiogenesis, which indicates that, yes, people can conceive of ways that might lead naturally from a system of non-self-replicating chemistry to self-replicators.

Asexual reproduction is the mode of reproduction for life on this planet. Living organisms on earth are overwhelmingly classed as prokaryotes. Most reproduction is asexual reproduction.

The demographics of SciCre are overwhelmingly male and not very young, at least gauged by online participation. I have known precisely two active female participants who took a YEC stance in online discussion in over thirteen years of reading online exchanges.

SciCre proponents are perfectly capable of doing science, but one will find that the scientific work published in the literature by SciCre-ists is conducted in the mode of methodological naturalism. In other words, their SciCre stance is completely unrelated to the science they publish. The scientific views held by SciCre-ists turn out to be the ones that everybody else has. On the other hand, SciCre doctrine is inherently anti-scientific. See my essay on naturalism for more information.

A corollary of this is that there is no scientific theory of creation. Not even the "Intelligent Design" proponents claim to have a scientific theory yet, just the basis for a scientific theory.

If you are interested in pursuing discussion of these issues, please consider posting to the talk.origins newsgroup. I've been asking people to give their scientific theory of creation or a reference to one for over a decade now, and all I've ever gotten in response are creeds or unsupported assertions.

Wesley

Pretentious, presumptious, ill-informed. The same-old stuff.

Some commentary on mutation and natural selection aptly demonstrates this.

Wesley

2. Exactly what is dated depends on the methodology. In the examples discussed in the Age of the Earth FAQ, a methodology is chosen to yield the span of time since things in the solar system ceased isotopic exchange with each other (i.e., when they formed from a common pool of material). Different methods have been applied to estimate the age of that material itself (or, rather, the "youngest" contribution to it by a supernova). If you want references to the latter, contact me offline.

Search engines are fun, but not dispositive of the issues raised.

I recommend that Berne actually crack open an issue of the journal "Evolution" and read it before saying that evolutionary theories are not the subject of research. Get a year's worth of the "Journal of Theoretical Biology" and have a look at the content. "Paleobiology" contains a fair amount of work that relates to theoretical issues of evolutionary import in life's history. And there are further journals whose actual content is in disagreement with the conclusions that Berne draws from keyword-based searches.

And finally, Berne should get a copy of Douglas Futuyma's "Evolutionary Biology" and show that none of his references address evolutionary theory.

Textbook committees considering adoption of "Of Pandas and People" as a supplemental text have a lot more to worry about than claims based on keyword searches.

Wesley

It is a difficult task to balance completeness with clarity. Either we are accused of providing too little detail, or we overwhelm the reader with too much. This is especially difficult because of the jargonized nature of science and the complexity of the universe it attempts to describe. I think the reader's critiques are well-founded, though; I'd like to see a pictoral comparison of Archaeopteryx with both a modern bird and another small carnivore such as Compsognathus. The reader might want to examine Kathleen Hunt's Horse Fossils FAQ and see if that is closer to what he has in mind. I'll also point him to The Lucy Test [now defunct], which is not a part of our site, but which I think does an excellent job of doing what the reader suggests.

I'll respond to various of the questions posed.

(1) Yes and no, but mostly no. PE is a theory about the punctuation of the history of evolution of a species, and works the other way around. Speciation is a process that occurs rapidly (in the geologic sense), and thus speciational change punctuates an otherwise relatively change-free history (stasis). This understanding can be applied to the dynamics of periods when a lot of speciation is observed to have happened, as in adaptive radiations.

(2) No, AFAICT. There is no apparent tie between PE and any particular mechanism of speciation-level genetic change.

(3) PE is an application of Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation of peripheral isolates to paleonotology. Eldredge and Gould made the point that paleontology must be informed by neontology. Geographical isolation as a typical prerequisite to speciation is something that was determined by empirical inquiry in modern species, and those findings are applied to the fossil record.

I'll recommend the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ for further reading.

Wesley

The exceptions have to do with arguments, such as the one you put, that Darwinism "leads to" this or that evil, and these are dealt with as well as we have the time or expertise to do it.

That scientific theories have side-effects on society is beyond question. Mostly, though, this is due to the use of vague ideas drawn from the theory or popularisations of those ideas to provide a post hoc justification of the ideology or ism. Thus, while some fascists or racists might mention "survival of the fittest", they don't need it to get to where they are.

The only direct and unequivocal influence of Darwinism on society I know of was the eugenics movement - not the Nazi extermination campaign but the movement that was practised in the Allies nations of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealnad, and so forth until the early 60s or even later. The justifications for "purifying the gene pool" were directly founded on neo_darwinian premises and several Darwinians (Fisher, Leo Darwin) were leading eugencists. However, even these views predated Darwin's theory: eugenics is just the modern version of aristocratic superiority in the "blood".

What you are referring to about kindness, the UN, etc, rests on the false assumption that the struggle for existence is a literal battle. It's not uncommon to make this assumption about Darwinism, especially when its popularisers use words like "altruistic behaviour" and "genetic self-interest". However, these are non-moral ascriptions, usually applying to genes not persons.

We certainly need to promote cooperation, but not because it is in line with or opposed to Darwinian evolution; instead, because it is right to do so.

The claim that America was founded on Christianity is incorrect. The motto "In God we Trust" didn't appear on the dollar bill until the mid 1950's, when, at the height of McCarthyism, congress feared the encroachment of communism, which they erroneously equated with atheism. (The same is true for the Pledge of Allegiance).

The folks who put together this website are not drug addicts, or wandering through life without direction, or trying to win popularity contests. This website is not an atheist website. It is a science website. If you feel that you cannot maintain your religious beliefs and accept scientific truths, you should re-evaluate both.

This archive does not aim to "disprove" the Bible. The intent is to put forth the scientific evidence and show the direction it points (and to expose some erroneous anti-science arguments as well). Whether a particular person's Biblical interpretation is compatible with that evidence is not our concern.

As for other recommendations... I've not seen an online "disproof" of the Bible of sufficient quality that I could recommend it with good conscience. I usually recommend Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties to folks interested in that topic. Archer argues for the inerrantist position, but it is fairly easy to see which of his answers to supposed problems are good and which are strained.

You chose to send Talk Origins several bible verses. I take that to mean that you feel those responsible for this website are godless heathens. You are in error if you believe that there are no persons with religious convictions that are associtated with this website. Yes, it is true that there are plenty who do not ascribe to religion, but by no means do you have to abandon your religious beliefs to accept the scientific truth of evolution.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden, one must wonder then what is the true source of Original Sin, and if there indeed is Original Sin at all. If there is no Original Sin, then Salvation, Jesus and Christianity suddenly become unnecessary.

The danger for literalists seems to be that if you take one passage metaphorically, then that starts the slippery slope dilema, and each irrational or contradictory passage in the bible will then be taken metaphorically, and where will it all end? They therefore must reject the idea that the bible contains ANY metaphors whatsoever.

At least that's my take on it... I realize that doesn't represent all Christian views.

Part of the problem is just verbal - once you define any biological phenomenon exactly, you are almost sure to eventually come across an exception. There is nothing so weird or improbable that it doesn't happen at least once in biology.

The Biological Species Concept - that species are populations of actually interbreeding organisms - has problems dealing with the following cases: ring species (as you note); superspecies (groups of species that are interfertile and yet remain morphologically distinct); hybrid, or nothospecies (common in plants and unicellular organisms); pseudospecies (these are taxa that seem to lack any distinguishing features of their own); asexual species, which divide into clonal species like bacteria and secondarily parthenogenetic species that reproduce through females only; and finally obligate symbionts, where two distinct organisms cannot live except with the other (lichens, eukaryotic endosymbionts).

It may sound like these are exotic cases, but taken together they account for by far the majority of existing life. Vertebrates are a small twig on a small branch of the tree of life.

Other species concepts, such as the morphological (shape-based) concept, the evolutionary concept and the phylogenetic concept all have their exceptions.

You'll find more about ring species in

Mayr E: 1970. Populations, Species and Evolution, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

and his older but still worthy

Mayr E: 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, New York NY

There are coyote ring species and wolf ring species. The gull you mention is the Herring Gull and (I think) Lesser Black Backed Gull. There are mouse ring species in Siberia, gopher ring species in the central USA, and any number of bird ring species...

I'm glad that we have given you the opportunity to express yourself.

Perhaps next time you might either state or give a reference to a scientific theory of creation. In over thirteen years of asking for one, none has ever been provided to me.

Wesley

Incidentally... the "speed of light decay" suggestion is outdated. The claim has been abandoned by knowledgeable creationists for it is refuted by the evidence. See, for example, the constancy of decay section of the Age of the Earth FAQ and an excellent talk.origins thread by Bill Jefferys in DejaNews. (A less charitable person might point out that "c-decay" was never consistent with the evidence, and those creationists who tripped all over themselves to endorse it did so only because it gave them the results they wanted.)

If you are referring to my Kent Hovind site, thanks. He does cast Christians in a negative light, and wastes no opportunity to cast aspersions on legitimate scientists and those of other beliefs. I, for one, treat everyone with respect who themselves are respectful of my right to hold my own beliefs.

Perhaps we also need a disclaimer at the bottom of the page, right above the other feedback button. And we should make the "Don't send us feedback to tell us the Earth is round" sentence boldface.

You think it is not possible for humans to write a book such as the bible without divide aid? How so?

If you believe the bible is without one contradiction, I suggest you investigate it more carefully. There are hundreds by my count. I have read the bible cover to cover many times.

This one certainly looks like a contradiction to me:

Did Michal have children?

II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."

vs.

II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."

In the matter of free will, if God knows the beginning from the end, and created all things, then we must act in accordance with what He has predestined for us. In other words, is there any way you could possibly choose a course of action other than what God already knows you will choose? If not, then you do not truly have freewill. Does God Himself have free will?

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Some people will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time.

In answer to your question, it is far easier to believe in the natural, mechanistic processes of evolution than to believe the first man was made directly from dirt, and the first woman was made from his rib.

If you think that this website only "selectively" posts articles- avoiding ones that contain evidence that is contrary to the theory of evolution, I invite you to take a deeper look. You have missed it!

Click the search button. If you feel that the maintainers of this website have selectively avoided a subject, type it into the search engine, and I'll bet you'll find it. How about these so-called examples of evidence that run contrary to the theory of evolution?

You say you are "selfishly and hedonistcally inclined to accept the evolution belief"... I doubt that. Why then would you claim that "creationists have a better scientific arguement(sic)"? Why would you say we are engaged in the "obviously vain and twisted pursuit of trying to define a process that apparently never occured(sic)". Your claim that you are a selfish and hedonistic evolutionist is merely an opportunity for thinly-veiled name-calling.

In the light of this overwhelming evidence, which has been plainly accessible in the paleontologic literature for nearly 100 years, the "no transitional forms" argument should have been given a decent burial long, long, ago.

One of the main reasons for maintaining a FAQ archive, is the hope (sometimes a vain hope) that posters will read the files first, and feedback after, rather than the other way around.

The appropriate place for extended discussions is the talk.origins newsgroup. E-mail addresses for the authors of the various essays in this archive are given.

I will take up a few points.

Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQ

That the biological phenomena are different and more complex does not mean that the point being made is incorrect, which is that increases in order occur via natural processes in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics.

The section of the FAQ in which the refrigerator example is given is introduced by the following.

In the case of the formation of the complex molecules characteristic of living organisms, creationists raise the point that when living things decay after death, the process of decay takes place with an increase in entropy. They also point out, correctly, that a spontaneous change in a system takes place with a high degree of probability. They fail to realize, however, that probability is relative, and a spontaneous change in a system can be reversed, providing the system interacts with its surroundings in such a manner that the entropy increase in the surroundings is more than enough to reverse the system's original entropy increase.

The refrigerator example is used to make the point that thermodynamically valid mechanisms are possible that reverse spontaneous changes. One might make a mistake and aver that the refrigeration process was being claimed to be a spontaneous process, but that would be the reader's mistake.

For those who insist that thermodynamics contradicts evolutionary processes, I have issued a standard challenge. If Berne can respond to that challenge with answers for all three parts, I would be very interested in hearing about it.

Abiogenesis as a topic is addressed in the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ.

An increase in information within a genome can come about in a variety of ways. The example that I like best, because it meets criteria for information increase under the rigorous Shannon definition of information and also casual conceptions of information is autopolyploid speciation via tetraploidy in orchids.

Wesley

No one on Talk.Origins is suggesting that abiogenesis be ignored as unimportant, or a subject that should be suppressed due to an embarrassing lack of information. Here is a FAQ dealing with Abiogenesis, and here is another. For much more, just click the "search" button, and type in "abiogenesis".

As far as Behe, he is soundly refuted in many places. All one has to do is open one's eyes to see. Try the Talk.Origins search engine. Here is a response to Behe on Talk.Origins, and here is BEHE'S EMPTY BOX.