Hmmm. You asked this same thing in another thread, and I
What I said is about the second law. Your scientific fact is not going
to break the second
If it's a scientific fact, then it cannot break the second law.
He is saying that your scientific fact about the role of mutation in
evolution has nothing to do with his theory of evolution. He is saying
that evolution goes against the 2nd law. You are saying that mutations
are simply part of the 2nd law in action, and that there is no need to
go against it.
You are both correct if we do not consider mutations as only genetic
Um, not sure I'm following that. His "theory of evolution" is "goddidit",
or some variation on that. And I'm afraid I'm not understanding what a non-
genetic mutation might be.
Every seven years all the cells in our bodies are completely renewed, so
in a sense we are completely new beings. You can call it a mutation or
part of our God given evolution.
The point is that it has been renewed
Well, lessee here...
Our cells are not renewed every seven years. Cells -- most cells, not all -
- are constantly being replaced. A good thing, as about 50 million cells a
day die. But not every seven years, rather at widely differing rates. The
lining of your small intestine is replaced every 2-4 days, your epidermis
every 10-30 days, your red blood cells every four months, your central
nervous system? Never.
But they're not "renewed", they're replaced. And the replacement process
is imperfect, and the resulting errors accumulate as the process continues
over and over, during our lifetime.
because according to the 2nd law the atomic particles in the molecules
are tending to disorder, and to come apart.
Well, no ... the second law applies to collections of particles, not to
individual particles. Electrons don't get scratches on them. Photons don't
decay. Protons live forever, or if they don't, their lifetime is some time
greater than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. But
that's a quibble; my point is that our bodies are not being <POOF!>
magically reset somehow. New parts are slapped in for old parts, but the
new parts themselves are not factory perfect.
Then, whatever the name you
want to apply to it, the process is reversed, but not by an external
force applied to stop it or keep it in check, but simply by the
regeneration of the tissues.
Again, it is not reversed. Damaged cells are replaced, but the
replacements carry the accumulated errors of many many cell divisions.
The question then arises: why does not this process go on indefinitely,
why do we age?
It goes on constantly, and as it does, the mutations accumulate. Copying
errors, insertions, deletions, frame shift errors, damage from radiation
and chemicals, and a host of other things.
But there is a built in mechanism for limiting the damage: the telomeres on
the ends of the chromosomes in essence count down the number of times the
cell has divided, and after a certain number of divisions, the chromosome
can no longer be copied and that cell will no longer divide. Which helps
limit the damage done by the accumulated mutations.
Of course cancer, being sneaky, often stumbles on a way to add back
telomeres, reset the countdown clock -- cancer cells can be, in essence,
immortal. OK, not literally, but very very long lived. Researchers in the
field use HeLa cancer cells, which have been reproducing, in vitro, for
seven decades. At a very accelerated rate compared to normal rates of cell
And cancer itself is the result of an entire suite of mutations necessary for
cancer cells to arise and succeed. Each mutation is hugely unlikely, but
given trillions of cells dividing, the odds of one or more cells winning
that cumulative jackpot becomes very reasonable. Autopsies of men 90 years
or older find a 100 percent incidence of cancer of the prostate. Tiny tiny
errors accumulate, given enough repetitions.
But I digress. My answer to "why does not this process go on indefinitely"
is that it does, but it's not magic, it's imperfect, it's not renewal, the
after a while the errors begin to tell.
If life rose simply as part of the coming together and aggregation of
physical particles, there would be no reason for it come apart: it would
Um, I don't follow that. If life arose purely through physical mechanisms,
then it could well be an imperfect error prone process needing only to be
able to hang on long enough to reproduce itself. There would be every
reason "for it to come apart". But "good enough" is satisfactory from the
viewpoint of evolution.
Therefore, it is apparent that this physical
world is imperfect, deficient. According to the 2nd law, no aggregation
of particles, however perfect, can continue.
As our bodies are renewed, each successive renewal is one more step removed
from its original perfection, and so acquires the seeds of its own eventual undoing.
Only mans' mind, consciense and spirit are eternal, capable of perfection in
the worlds of God.
I don't see any significant disagreement on our part as regards the
physical manifestations discussed. Other than specific details
As to the last add-on, mind, conscience and spirit being eternal, I'm
afraid I'm not aware of any evidence for that.