Granville Sewell has dramatic news for gardeners

Posted 27 February 2011 by Guest Contributor

by Joe Felsenstein,
http://evolution.gs.washington.edu/felsenstein.html Granville Sewell is a mathematician at the University of Texas, El Paso, who is an expert on numerical solution of differential equations. He is also the author of repeated arguments that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes it impossible for evolution to improve living organisms. The obvious reply is that the biosphere is not an isolated, closed system, that to come near having one, we must also include the sun which undergoes a huge increase of entropy as it radiates energy, that more than compensates for the much smaller decrease of entropy involved in the evolution of life. William Dembski, at Uncommon Descent, has announced that a paper by Sewell is in press at Applied Mathematics Letters. Sewell makes available a preprint version here. It is the same argument Sewell has been making lately:

Thus the equations for entropy change do not support the illogical "compensation" idea; instead, they illustrate the tautology that "if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable".

And Sewell does not think that anything has entered the Earth that explains the decrease of entropy by evolution of life because, as he said in a paper in The Mathematical Intelligencer in 2001:

if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here.

We should be grateful to Sewell: he has apparently proven something astonishing. A year ago, I pointed out here at Panda's Thumb that if true, Sewell's arguments showed that weeds could not grow in a garden -- that a few weed seeds could not turn into weed plants bearing many of the same seeds. All we see entering the weeds is (mostly) radiation from the sun, carbon dioxide, water, and a few minerals. Following Sewell's logic, this is not enough to explain the decrease of entropy involved in the growth of the weeds. Sewell continues to make the same arguments. If not only the Discovery Institute, but also William Dembski and, now, Applied Mathematics Letters Editor: Reports indicate that the Applied Mathematics Letters has rescinded the acceptance. validate Sewell's arguments, who are we to resist? We must get the word out, especially to gardeners. Sewell's formulation of the Second Law proves conclusively that: * Weeds can't grow in your garden and for that matter * Flowers can't grow either. Granville Sewell may have saved gardeners a huge amount of wasted effort.

93 Comments

Chris Lawson · 27 February 2011

Snowflakes can't possibly form either (complex crystals emerging from liquid water as it increases entropy). And chicken eggs sure can't hatch chicks (much more complex than a single fertilised cell) because they only receive heat from outside, not even minerals or meteorites.

Clearly the existence of snowflakes and hatching eggs is a fraud perpetrated by Darwinists. :-)

mrg · 27 February 2011

Creationists like to cite Sewell's MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER article; one poster responded wearily that he actually looked it up, and noted that the MI gives its charter as:

Not only does The Mathematical Intelligencer inform a broad audience of mathematicians and the wider intellectual community, it also entertains. Throughout, the journal, humor, puzzles, poetry, fiction, and art can be found. The journal also features information on emergent mathematical communities around the world, new interdisciplinary trends, and relations between mathematics and other areas of culture.

The poster then politely added: "So is Sewell's paper categorized as HUMOR -- or FICTION?" On learning about Sewell, I did some scouting around and I found the flap over the FORTRAN program he wrote in which he claimed to have simulated the past natural history of the Earth on his laptop computer -- and his simulation showed evolution didn't happen. The responses were along the lines of: DID WE HEAR THIS RIGHT?! It sounded like a put-on, but creationists do say such things. Sewell admitted it was just a "thought experiment". Ah -- an eccentric argument of incredulity. "But Professor Sewell, in MY imaginary computer simulation, it worked just fine. Can I take a look at your code so I can see what you did wrong?"

Ryan Cunningham · 27 February 2011

I was going to point out how absurd it is that this argument could be applied equally well to almost anything we observe happening on Earth, but then I realized, to a creationist, this is a feature, not a bug.

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

Editor: Reports indicate that the Applied Mathematics Letters has rescinded the acceptance.

As well they should. It’s Sewell’s Appendix D all over again. This septic tank has no drain field.

mrg · 27 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said: It’s Sewell’s Appendix D all over again.

Obviously AML decided an appendectomy was in order.

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

An adult is approximately a scaled up child.

Suppose each of the dimensions of the adult is twice that of the child. That’s eight times the volume and eight times the entropy for an adult relative to the child.

According to creationist “physics” the child is “eight times more orderly,” therefore eight times more advanced as an organism.

So, as plants and animals develop, their entropy increases and they become stupider.

That certainly appears to apply to creationists.

Glen Davidson · 27 February 2011

How do we know that nuclear submarines and computers are unlikely to appear in our environment without the aid of intelligence? Well, because they don't appear without intelligence being involved.

How do we know that life is unlikely to appear without the aid of intelligence? ~~Well, because they don't appear without intelligence being involved.~~ Uh, because of the analogy with nuclear submarines and computers.

I mean, there isn't anything that makes life markedly different from machines, is there? Apart from imperfect replication, that is. That wouldn't make any difference, now would it?

Oh sure, if you're an evil Darwinist you'd claim that imperfect replication allows evolution to proceed, and likewise you'd ask why, if life appeared via (divine) intelligence, don't nuclear submarines and computers appear from that same intelligence? Maybe they don't, but a fine-tuned universe did.

So we know that life had to appear via intelligence, and that wasn't human intelligence. Of course cave paintings supposedly dating to before the flood could have been made by exactly that same intelligence, which shows how much Behe and other evil IDists know. They'd just say that humans made handaxes and the like, but it's obvious that the intelligence that could make life could also make handaxes, so those don't mean anything about early human life.

And so we've neatly shown that with ID there is absolutely no way of determining if humans did it or if it was just ordinary God-action. God only makes technology that reproduces, so that's why he's not making nuclear submarines and computers for us, and so it's just by chance that God's technology only happens to appear to be like what evolutionists say can evolve. And you have no business asking why the Designer only makes technology that reproduces--that's theology, even though ID isn't about God at all.

Glen Davidson

Karen S. · 27 February 2011

I'm a gardener so that is indeed wonderful news. And I won't have to pay for fertilizer this year either; I'll just use Sewell's paper.

fnxtr · 27 February 2011

The simplest rejoinder, of course, is that weeds are also designed. Meh.

Creationists are still stuck in this "spontaneous molecular chaos / tornado in a junkyard" mental groove they've carved themselves.

No, your house won't clean itself if you leave the curtains open, but your house isn't a small, localized chemical reaction.

Teh stupid, it burns.

SWT · 27 February 2011

Credit where credit is due; Sewell has done something remarkable.

This paper is a tour de force of thermodynamic misunderstanding that manages simultaneously to include no original ideas and include no recent references more scholarly than a physics textbook.

Amazing.

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

A thermodynamic system consisting of two creationists duct taped together is twice as stupid as one.

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

SWT said: Credit where credit is due; Sewell has done something remarkable. This paper is a tour de force of thermodynamic misunderstanding that manages simultaneously to include no original ideas and include no recent references more scholarly than a physics textbook. Amazing.

Similarly, Peter Urone, in College Physics [Urone 2001], writes: Some people misuse the second law of thermodynamics, stated in terms of entropy, to say that the existence and evolution of life violate the law and thus require divine intervention.... It is true that the evolution of life from inert matter to its present forms represents a large decrease in entropy for living systems. But it is always possible for the entropy of one part of the universe to decrease, provided the total change in entropy of the universe increases.

And even the information drawn from the textbook is misleading. Sigh!

SWT · 27 February 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Editor: Reports indicate that the Applied Mathematics Letters has rescinded the acceptance.
As well they should. It’s Sewell’s Appendix D all over again. This septic tank has no drain field.

Dang! I missed that -- I was hoping to get a quick publication from writing a response.

raven · 27 February 2011

A year ago, I pointed out here at Panda’s Thumb that if true, Sewell’s arguments showed that weeds could not grow in a garden – that a few weed seeds could not turn into weed plants bearing many of the same seeds.

Worse than that. Humans and all megafauna are impossible. The scientist's story is that we start as a single cell zygote which grows and differentiates into a fantastically complex baby in 9 months. This huge decrease in entropy and increase in complexity can't happen according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The real theories have been out there for centuries. The stork theory of reproduction or the cabbage patch one explains the available facts far better.

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

raven said: The scientist's story is that we start as a single cell zygote which grows and differentiates into a fantastically complex baby in 9 months. This huge decrease in entropy and increase in complexity can't happen according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The real theories have been out there for centuries. The stork theory of reproduction or the cabbage patch one explains the available facts far better.

I think we will need to go over this again. I did a talk on this at a Science Café last year. The links to the audio as well as the PowerPoint presentation that accompanies it are both there on the above link. The audio recorder died about 2/3 of the way through the talk (sorry), but the PowerPoint presentation is still there. It is a mistake to attribute decreases in entropy to increases in complexity or to spatial order. Entropy is about the number of energy microstates consistent with the macroscopic state of the system (its total energy, its temperature, volume, magnetization, etc.) How this all connects with the actual physical structure of a thermodynamic system is not straight forward; it is highly system dependent. Classically it is closely related to the fact that energy flows spontaneously from high temperature to low temperature. So if a given amount of energy leaves a system at a high temperature and arrives in the surrounding environment at a lower temperature, dividing that quantity of energy by a lower temperature is a larger quantity than that same amount of energy divided by the higher temperature. Thus the total entropy increases. And it turns out from statistical mechanics that spreading the same amount of energy around into more microscopic states represents an increase in entropy. One has to be very careful not to confuse this with how a system is structured. All else being equal (same temperature, same energy density, etc.) doubling the volume doubles the entropy. If heat flows out of a system, the entropy decreases. A small very complicated system (microscopically) can have greater entropy than a large simpler system. It depends on number of microstates. So it is not primarily about order or structure or complexity.

Jose Fly · 27 February 2011

He is also the author of repeated arguments that the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes it impossible for evolution to improve living organisms. The obvious reply is that the biosphere is not an isolated, closed system...

Um...isn't the obvious reply that we actually observe organisms improving, all the time, every single day? I mean, so much so that evolving resistant strains of E. coli is a basic BIO 101 lab experiment. Creationists may as well argue that objects falling to the ground is impossible. Once you see it happen over and over and over again, what else needs to be said? It happens, get over it!

Stanton · 27 February 2011

raven said:
A year ago, I pointed out here at Panda’s Thumb that if true, Sewell’s arguments showed that weeds could not grow in a garden – that a few weed seeds could not turn into weed plants bearing many of the same seeds.
Worse than that. Humans and all megafauna are impossible. The scientist's story is that we start as a single cell zygote which grows and differentiates into a fantastically complex baby in 9 months. This huge decrease in entropy and increase in complexity can't happen according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

If the 2nd Law really did apply to Evolution, then mitosis and being alive would be totally impossible.

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

Holy Crap! That “discussion” going on over at UD is just grotesque!

GvlGeologist, FCD · 27 February 2011

Even though the journal has rescinded the acceptance of this paper, I'm shocked that this leaked through the peer review process. WTF? Was this shepherded through like Meyer's 2004 "Origin of Biological Information..." was?

If not, were the mathematical peer reviewers really that ignorant of basic thermodynamics?

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Even though the journal has rescinded the acceptance of this paper, I'm shocked that this leaked through the peer review process. WTF? Was this shepherded through like Meyer's 2004 "Origin of Biological Information..." was? If not, were the mathematical peer reviewers really that ignorant of basic thermodynamics?

I was wondering the same thing. I don’t know what the proportion of mathematical physicists subscribing to that journal is, but one would think the editors would have at least contacted a physicist knowledgeable about thermodynamics and statistical mechanics somewhere if not among the usual reviewers for this particular journal. That may be what ultimately happened that led to the rescinding of the “paper”; they had to make a contact outside their normal circle of reviewers after someone expressed some doubts. But it does emphasize the extent to which legitimate journals are under stress with the increased work loads all editors and reviewers are experiencing. And from what I know of past behaviors of ID/creationists, they are constantly on the lookout for overloaded systems in order to slip something through when the gatekeepers are distracted.

Flint · 27 February 2011

Was this shepherded through like Meyer’s 2004 “Origin of Biological Information…” was?

Wouldn't be surprised; that seems to be standard creationist technique. It worked with Steinberg, and it very nearly worked at Ohio State. It's working with the Texas school board. And one more religion-inspired Supreme Court justice, and it will become law of the land. Recall that Edwards was not unanimous. Scalia is still on the court, and he argued that academic freedom protects the teacher's right to preach (Scalia's) religion in science class. The right to preach other religions in science hasn't been tested. I wonder if Scalia would be so enthusiastic about academic freedom if a Muslim exercised it?

SWT · 27 February 2011

Here's a link to the editorial board of the journal:
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaleditorialboard.cws_home/843/editorialboard

There are people on this board who should understand thermodynamics well enough to recognize the problems in this paper. It's possible that one of them saw the online version and called an end to the nonsense.

As others have noted, it does seem odd that such a deeply flawed work made it through peer review in the first place.

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

SWT said: Here's a link to the editorial board of the journal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaleditorialboard.cws_home/843/editorialboard There are people on this board who should understand thermodynamics well enough to recognize the problems in this paper. It's possible that one of them saw the online version and called an end to the nonsense. As others have noted, it does seem odd that such a deeply flawed work made it through peer review in the first place.

Ah; I was just over there searching through the board. Looking over the Editorial Board at Elsevier, I see only one possible editor, P.A. Markowich at Cambridge, who might be qualified to direct this “paper” to the proper reviewer. I suspect international publishing houses might have a harder time vetting stuff than say the AMS or MAA or any of the usual scientific journals. But still, these publishers don’t really want to acquire a reputation for publishing pure crap.

SWT · 27 February 2011

FWIW, the paper is still available on the AML website.

Wheels · 27 February 2011

raven said:
A year ago, I pointed out here at Panda’s Thumb that if true, Sewell’s arguments showed that weeds could not grow in a garden – that a few weed seeds could not turn into weed plants bearing many of the same seeds.
Worse than that. Humans and all megafauna are impossible.

Well of course we are. That's why we're miraculous. If things had a naturalistic explanation, there'd be "no purpose" in life! Anti-evolutionists NEED us to be impossible.

sparc · 27 February 2011

There are people on this board who should understand thermodynamics well enough to recognize the problems in this paper. It’s possible that one of them saw the online version and called an end to the nonsense.

Obviously, the board needed some hint from outside.

Arthur Hunt · 27 February 2011

Sewell's formulation means that oil and water will mix spontaneously and never, ever separate into perfectly-ordered phases.

Henry J · 27 February 2011

If the 2^nd Law really did apply to Evolution, then mitosis and being alive would be totally impossible.

Yeah; evolution is a side effect of the reproductive process, which decidedly is observed. (Otherwise there wouldn't be so many rabbits hopping around out there.)

Mike Elzinga · 27 February 2011

sparc said:
There are people on this board who should understand thermodynamics well enough to recognize the problems in this paper. It’s possible that one of them saw the online version and called an end to the nonsense.
Obviously, the board needed some hint from outside.

Ah; nice!

hiero5ant · 28 February 2011

Stanton said: If the 2nd Law really did apply to Evolution, then mitosis and being alive would be totally impossible.

The 2nd Law really does apply to evolution, yet mitosis and being alive are not impossible.

SWT · 28 February 2011

"You keep using that law. I do not think it means what you think it means."

The Founding Mothers · 28 February 2011

SWT said: "You keep using that law. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Inconceivable!

Rolf Aalberg · 28 February 2011

The reason creationists love the 2LOT so is of course that it is sufficiently enigmatic in nature that their audience hardly may be expected to make an effort to learn something about it. They want to believe him. They are trained believers. They clutch at straws to sustain faith. Besides people like Sewell saying what they want to hear and believe, they are already suffering from the greater problem of sustaining faith. And that is our problem!

Wesley R. Elsberry · 28 February 2011

Readers may also want to check out Mark Perakh's 2006 critique of Sewell's argument.

An animal’s body constantly exchanges energy and matter with its surrounding, so it is an open system for which entropy decrease is possible. Were Sewell right, such growth and development would be impossible, as would be the evolutionary process. The very existence of Sewell as a living person testifies against his anti-evolution pseudo-thermodynamic arguments.

Gerdien · 28 February 2011

The most important question must be what made Applied Mathematics Letters to accept this in the first place. Were the reviewers totally ignorant of the field? Or could Sewell suggest reviewers, that were thought acceptable by the journal?

SWT · 28 February 2011

Gerdien said: The most important question must be what made Applied Mathematics Letters to accept this in the first place. Were the reviewers totally ignorant of the field? Or could Sewell suggest reviewers, that were thought acceptable by the journal?

I don't know the practice of AML, but it is not uncommon that authors are requested to provide a list of possible reviewers for their submission; I almost always need to do that in my own field, chemical engineering. Ask yourself this: if you weren't interested in ID, would you reject all of the properly credentialed people on this list? Sewell would only have to pick 3-5.

raven · 28 February 2011

The most important question must be what made Applied Mathematics Letters to accept this in the first place. Were the reviewers totally ignorant of the field? Or could Sewell suggest reviewers, that were thought acceptable by the journal?

Good question. This happens occasionally. Scientists have a right to ask how it happened. Very rarely do they get any sort of answer whatsoever. Sternberg was one of the few cases where the journal admitted that he abused his position with the journal and circumvented the review process. Probably there were creationists somewhere in the review process and they just snuck it through and hoped they didn't get caught. We may get an explanation but probably won't. It's also happening more and more. With online publishing, there has been an explosion of obscure and specialized journals. We see it in medicine a lot. There are any number of alternative medicine and plain quack medicine journals that are really just Fake cargo cult journals. Things like The Journal of Mercury and Autism Journal in which every article explains how mercury in vaccines causes autism despite the fact that mercury was taken out of them years ago. The National Library of Medicine picks them up and indexes them along with everything else. These days, you have to be careful when you search their huge database for information. The conclusion is these days, peer reviewed papers doesn't mean what it used to.

Kurt · 28 February 2011

If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!

SWT · 28 February 2011

Kurt said: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!

And Kurt said, "Let there be light." And there was light. And Kurt saw that it was good. And coherent. And collimated.

rossum · 28 February 2011

Kurt said: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One!

Lasers? OK, but where are you going to get the sharks to fit them to? [cocks little finger] Bwahahahaha! rossum

eric · 28 February 2011

Rolf Aalberg said: The reason creationists love the 2LOT so is of course that it is sufficiently enigmatic in nature that their audience hardly may be expected to make an effort to learn something about it.

Enigmatic in the details, maybe, but one doesn't have to understand the details to understand why the creationist argument is flawed. One only has to understand the nature of physical laws in general. The laws of thermodynamics are exactly like all other physical laws in that they apply equally to intelligent critters like us. The laws of motion apply to us. The laws of conservation apply to us. And the laws of thermodynamics apply to us. Which means any apparent (but not real) local violation we can do to any of these laws - not just the thermodynamic ones - nature can do too. A cursory look at Sewell's equations shows that even he doesn't claim an exception for intelligent actors. There's no factor in any of his equations that takes intelligence into account. So even according to his math, there's nothing - nothing at all - that an intelligent designer could do which unintelligent nature could not do. So even according to his math, the set of phenomena for which intelligent design is the only physically possible explanation is an empty set.

Elizabeth Liddle · 28 February 2011

What the 2LoT arguers don't seem to understand is that evolutionary processes obey the 2LoT very precisely - things evolve to minimise free energy.

It's also the way that brains seem to work, not surprisingly.

truthspeaker · 28 February 2011

Arthur Hunt | February 27, 2011 10:54 PM | Reply | Edit Sewell’s formulation means that oil and water will mix spontaneously and never, ever separate into perfectly-ordered phases.

So not only is this good news for gardeners, it's good news for people who put dressing on their salad.

Henry J · 28 February 2011

Enigmatic in the details, maybe, but one doesn’t have to understand the details to understand why the creationist argument is flawed. One only has to understand the nature of physical laws in general.

Yep. Though when the "argument" accuses scientists as a group of continuously ignoring something basic, it doesn't actually take understanding the science to realize how absurd that is, given that scientists come from a large variety of cultures, and aren't under any single authority. (That same reasoning can be used against any argument that basically makes that type of generic accusation.) There's also the point that in science a "law" is a description, not a mandate - if there was a law of physics with which evolution wasn't compatible, it would mean that one of them was wrong, in which case more research would have to be done to figure out which one. Henry J

Flint · 28 February 2011

The concept of an iterative feedback system is simple enough that anyone who grasps it can hardly help but realize that evolution is necessary and unavoidable. So the challenge is to explain why something so unavoidable DOES NOT HAPPEN. This is quite a challenge - even creationists use iterative feedback process to do such things as find their mouths with their food, or stay on the road while driving (sober! Drunk driving shows what happens when this system degenerates).

So I think the thermodynamics arguments are constructed of two parts. The first part is to explain the nonexistence of the self-evidently existent. The second is to explain it in terms almost nobody can properly understand, so that it sounds convincing to the rubes and yokels. Like using complex equations full of symbols few people recognize, to explain why the bumblebee can't fly. Guaranteed convincing, to those whose religion teaches that bumblebees do not fly, and therefore can't SEE them do it.

Stuart Weinstein · 28 February 2011

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Readers may also want to check out Mark Perakh's 2006 critique of Sewell's argument.
An animal’s body constantly exchanges energy and matter with its surrounding, so it is an open system for which entropy decrease is possible. Were Sewell right, such growth and development would be impossible, as would be the evolutionary process. The very existence of Sewell as a living person testifies against his anti-evolution pseudo-thermodynamic arguments.

One wonders whether Sewell understands what the role of metabolism is.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne · 28 February 2011

Henry J said: Though when the "argument" accuses scientists as a group of continuously ignoring something basic, it doesn't actually take understanding the science to realize how absurd that is, given that scientists come from a large variety of cultures, and aren't under any single authority.

Not unless you consider the Worldwide Global Warming Conspiracy to be a "single authority." Then, yeah. \snark

mrg · 1 March 2011

Flint said: Like using complex equations full of symbols few people recognize, to explain why the bumblebee can't fly.

Which I believe can be done very easily -- by modeling a bee as a fixed-wing aircraft. "Follow the assumptions."

Henry J · 1 March 2011

Which I believe can be done very easily – by modeling a bee as a fixed-wing aircraft.

So if you instead model it as a broken-wing aircraft it can fly? :p

mrg · 1 March 2011

Henry J said: So if you instead model it as a broken-wing aircraft it can fly? :p

You model it as an ornithopter.

Henry J · 1 March 2011

That are two tech nickle!!111!!one!!

Henry J · 1 March 2011

Besides, this is Earth, not Arrakis (aka Dune).

mrg · 1 March 2011

Don't need to go offworld:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8ZbtZqH6Io

Mike Elzinga · 1 March 2011

Flint said: Like using complex equations full of symbols few people recognize, to explain why the bumblebee can't fly. Guaranteed convincing, to those whose religion teaches that bumblebees do not fly, and therefore can't SEE them do it.

If the equations are really complex, you can imagine that they can't fly.

mrg · 1 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: If the equations are really complex, you can imagine that they can't fly.

You get a grade of "-i" for that one.

Henry J · 1 March 2011

You get a grade of “-i” for that one.

Is that grade irreducible?

Gordon Davisson · 2 March 2011

Joe Felsenstein said: The obvious reply is that the biosphere is not an isolated, closed system, that to come near having one, we must also include the sun which undergoes a huge increase of entropy as it radiates energy, that more than compensates for the much smaller decrease of entropy involved in the evolution of life.

Right about the biosphere not being isolated, wrong about where the compensating entropy increase is. To oversimplify a bit, heat flows carry (positive) entropy, so the net entropy flow is from the sun TO earth, not the other way around. OTOH, both the sun and earth radiate heat away to deep space, allowing local entropy decreases at the cost of an increase outside the solar system. In fact, although I've never found a proper calculation, I'm pretty sure that the sun's entropy is decreasing (fusion produces entropy, but not as much as is carried away by radiated photons and neutrinos).

SAWells · 2 March 2011

@Gordon: I asked about the same point in another thread. On consideration I think we can say:

The fusion process, roughly 4H+ + 2e- goes to He2+ + antineutrinos + radiation, is entropically favourable due to the entropy of the radiation.

The sun keeps the helium and spits out the radiation and antineutrinos; thus the sun is actually decreasing its entropy and there's an outward entropy flux. The bit about the sun decreasing in entropy is where my mind blew a gasket first time round but now I grok it.

The earth takes in solar radiation (6000K blackbody) and radiates the same energy again (300K blackbody); there's more entropy in the outgoing flux than the incoming as the outgoing flux is many low-energy photons but the incoming flux is a few high-energy photons.

Life piggybacks on that entropy differential.

Outer space, the cold reservoir in the whole system, is slowly heating up and gaining entropy.

I like science :)

SAWells · 2 March 2011

Neutrinos? Antineutrinos? Gah.

Joe Felsenstein · 2 March 2011

Gordon Davisson said:
Joe Felsenstein said: The obvious reply is that the biosphere is not an isolated, closed system, that to come near having one, we must also include the sun which undergoes a huge increase of entropy as it radiates energy, that more than compensates for the much smaller decrease of entropy involved in the evolution of life.
Right about the biosphere not being isolated, wrong about where the compensating entropy increase is. To oversimplify a bit, heat flows carry (positive) entropy, so the net entropy flow is from the sun TO earth, not the other way around. OTOH, both the sun and earth radiate heat away to deep space, allowing local entropy decreases at the cost of an increase outside the solar system. In fact, although I've never found a proper calculation, I'm pretty sure that the sun's entropy is decreasing (fusion produces entropy, but not as much as is carried away by radiated photons and neutrinos).

I should not have said the sun “undergoes a huge increase of entropy” but rather that, as energy radiates from the sun (some of it hitting the earth and some of that getting temporarily trapped in life forms), the whole isolated system undergoes a huge increase in entropy. Sewell wants to count up how much “entropy” there is in just that part of the system that is life, and argue that there is no explanation for the decrease of this as evolution progresses. It is less than clear how to compute his “entropy” which might even get bigger as the biosphere gets bigger. In any case the point is that any argument he has that prevents evolution must also (fortunately) prevent the growth of weeds and the (unfortunately) also prevent the growth of flowers. As energy flows out from the sun and some of it gets caught by life, the total energy content of life has thereby increased. That represents a decrease of entropy (of the whole system) compared to what would have happened if life had failed to catch any of the energy impinging on it. If life catches that energy and detains it, the whole system has increased its entropy, but not by quite as much as it would have if life didn't catch that energy. And we get nice flowers, but alas also weeds.

DS · 2 March 2011

Right. So the only point in all of the SLOT arguments is that life on earth could not exist without the sun. Got it. Now, how does that prove that goddidit?

Interestingly enough, there are some organisms that acquire their energy from a source other than the sun. I guess they could still exist, at least for a little while, even if the sun ceased to shine. So I guess there is absolutely no point at all to SLOT arguments against evolution. Maybe they should stick them where the sun don't shine.

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2011

DS said: Right. So the only point in all of the SLOT arguments is that life on earth could not exist without the sun. Got it. Now, how does that prove that goddidit? Interestingly enough, there are some organisms that acquire their energy from a source other than the sun. I guess they could still exist, at least for a little while, even if the sun ceased to shine. So I guess there is absolutely no point at all to SLOT arguments against evolution. Maybe they should stick them where the sun don't shine.

There is an extremely important point that is constantly being overlooked here; and I am pretty sure that the misconceptions, “debate” parameters, and definitions set by the ID/creationists have a lot to do with it. Every condensed matter system got that way by releasing energy. But now that one has a condensed matter system, how it behaves depends on (1) how tightly it is bound together (how deeply matter is nestled in mutual potential wells), (2) how complicated it is and how its various parts are coupled together, and (3) how the energy of the heat bath in which it is immersed flows through it. The systems we are talking about in the context of organic chemistry and living organisms fall into a category that is beginning to receive the appellation “soft matter.” Soft matter exists within a heat bath that keeps them near their “melting points,” i.e., at the point where the mutual potential energies binding matter together are on the order of the energy fluctuations in the heat bath in which they are immersed. When that happens, all sorts of marvelous things can happen because the condensed matter can “flop around” in extremely complex ways. The coupling among parts of these systems can behave in highly coordinated manners, with periodic phenomena flowing through the system coordinating other events throughout the system. And life as we know it exists within that very narrow energy range of liquid water on the order of 0.01 to 0.04 electron volts. Within that narrow energy window, complex soft matter systems explore all kinds of configurations and behaviors consistent with their structure, their binding energies, and the energy fluctuations that drive them. I think I mentioned sometime back that the phenomena of hyperthermia and hypothermia are striking examples of subsystems within a living organism that cannot function once they are taken outside a narrow energy band within the heat bath they normally function in. Action potentials are on the order of 70 mV, which means the heat bath in which such systems are immersed must allow this range to be encompassed by chemical events that cause these signals. These shut down below that range and go chaotic above it. It is not the heat bath that does the organizing in complex soft matter systems; that organization is already there as a result of the electromagnetic interactions that bind matter together and the quantum mechanical rules that lead to its emergent structure. The heat bath drives the system; take it away and all the coordinated activity in the system “dies.”

mrg · 2 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: There is an extremely important point that is constantly being overlooked here; and I am pretty sure that the misconceptions, “debate” parameters, and definitions set by the ID/creationists have a lot to do with it.

Creationist debate parameters: "You have to play by the rules, while I get to hit you over the head with a brick."

fnxtr · 2 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said: "Soft" matter exists within a heat bath that keeps them near their “melting points,” i.e., at the point where the mutual potential energies binding matter together are on the order of the energy fluctuations in the heat bath in which they are immersed. When that happens, all sorts of marvelous things can happen because the condensed matter can “flop around” in extremely complex ways. The coupling among parts of these systems can behave in highly coordinated manners, with periodic phenomena flowing through the system coordinating other events throughout the system.

I just had an AHA moment. There's a small, erm... window... of energy levels wherein (known) life can survive, but lots of wiggle room within that window, subject of course to physical/electrochemical limitations. Bouncing around in a cup, as it were. Thanks again, Mr. E! So, are there "windows" at other energy levels where similar complicated wiggling can occur, or is there something unique about organic chemistry? Not to get into an elan vital discussion or anything, just wondering if there is something about organic (carbon?) compounds that makes them particularly ... elastic... or... promiscuous. Heh. Some artist, huh? Words fail.

IBelieveInGod · 2 March 2011

A dog that is alive is an open system correct? A living dog is able to exchange food for energy and continue to produce new cells, which is what makes it an open system. But what about a dead dog?

mrg · 2 March 2011

Can somebody moderate this thread? Nobody has to be patient with this guy, his troll rap sheet is as long as his arm.

IBelieveInGod · 2 March 2011

mrg said: Can somebody moderate this thread? Nobody has to be patient with this guy, his troll rap sheet is as long as his arm.

I'm asking a legitimate question, is a dead dog a closed system, in respect to it's brain cells, muscle cells, etc. Let me ask this can the brain cells in a dead dog continue to exchange energy and produce new brain cells?

fnxtr · 2 March 2011

Let's pretend for a moment that IBIG isn't being disingenuous.

Once the delicate chemical balance that keeps the dog alive is permantently disrupted, it doesn't magically re-establish itself. A dead dog stays dead.

btw new brain cells, as a rule, don't usually form once a mammal has reached maturity. They just make new connections.

If you want to know how the chemical balance was established in the first place, go read a fucking book and leave us alone, okay? Thank you.

mrg · 2 March 2011

fnxtr said: Let's pretend for a moment that IBIG isn't being disingenuous.

THAT would be a first. May I politely suggest that since IBIG has his very own personal thread over on ATBC, anybody who absolutely INSISTS, who for some unfathomable reason thinks it's a good idea, wants to argue with him take up the argument there? If he honestly wants to get an answer to the question, he can have no objections to getting the answers on ATBC in his very own personal thread.

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2011

fnxtr said: So, are there "windows" at other energy levels where similar complicated wiggling can occur, or is there something unique about organic chemistry? Not to get into an elan vital discussion or anything, just wondering if there is something about organic (carbon?) compounds that makes them particularly ... elastic... or... promiscuous. Heh. Some artist, huh? Words fail.

Indeed that is an extremely interesting question. So far our experience is limited to what we see here on planet Earth. But there has been much speculation about the possibility of other chemistries within other energy windows doing similar things. After all, we see this kind of behavior with other systems all the time in the laboratory and in industrial chemical processes. But carbon along with the particular concentrations of other elements we find here has an incredible range of combinations and systems it can form within the temperature ranges found on Earth. There are rich chemical environments on the moons of Jupiter and perhaps in other parts of the universe that have the potential for just as much complexity. So it is an open question at this point; and one of great interest for further research.

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: I'm asking a legitimate question, is a dead dog a closed system, in respect to it's brain cells, muscle cells, etc. Let me ask this can the brain cells in a dead dog continue to exchange energy and produce new brain cells?

Look at yourself in the mirror. There you will see a system that has brain cells which are also incapable of learning. So brain deadness is not restricted to physically dead organisms.

mrg · 2 March 2011

Yep, that'll show 'im!

JASONMITCHELL · 2 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: A dog that is alive is an open system correct? A living dog is able to exchange food for energy and continue to produce new cells, which is what makes it an open system. But what about a dead dog?

from the point of view of thermodynamics - a dead dog is still an open system - still absorbing/losing heat from/to the environment- i.e. in the desert- if the dead dog was on the road - it would cook - are you asking why a dead dog is dead? (or IF?) if you are trying to conflate decay (decomposition of dead - formerly alive things) and 'entropy' you are either being disingenuous/propagating a known falsehood (evil) or showing your ignorance. so which is it - are you stupid or a liar?

mrg · 2 March 2011

JASONMITCHELL said: so which is it - are you stupid or a liar?

He's a bullshitter. And it works. You bit, didn't you?

JASONMITCHELL · 2 March 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
fnxtr said: So, are there "windows" at other energy levels where similar complicated wiggling can occur, or is there something unique about organic chemistry? Not to get into an elan vital discussion or anything, just wondering if there is something about organic (carbon?) compounds that makes them particularly ... elastic... or... promiscuous. Heh. Some artist, huh? Words fail.
Indeed that is an extremely interesting question. So far our experience is limited to what we see here on planet Earth. But there has been much speculation about the possibility of other chemistries within other energy windows doing similar things. After all, we see this kind of behavior with other systems all the time in the laboratory and in industrial chemical processes. But carbon along with the particular concentrations of other elements we find here has an incredible range of combinations and systems it can form within the temperature ranges found on Earth. There are rich chemical environments on the moons of Jupiter and perhaps in other parts of the universe that have the potential for just as much complexity. So it is an open question at this point; and one of great interest for further research.

Sulphur has some really interesting chemistry at a few hundred degrees hotter than life as we know it would thrive Hal Clement - had some interesting speculative fiction around alternate chemistries http://icecubicle.net/2009/07/24/hal-clement-iceworld/

JASONMITCHELL · 2 March 2011

mrg said:
JASONMITCHELL said: so which is it - are you stupid or a liar?
He's a bullshitter. And it works. You bit, didn't you?

I like to think that responding to trolls still serves to inform lurkers - but perhaps I deceive myself

mrg · 2 March 2011

Hal Clement's ICEWORLD, which takes place on several planets and UFOs landing north of Hope, Idaho.

North of Hope, there's not much but the endless mountains and forests of the far northern Idaho panhandle. You get lost up there .. you ARE beyond Hope.

mrg · 2 March 2011

JASONMITCHELL said: I like to think that responding to trolls still serves to inform lurkers - but perhaps I deceive myself

Ah, the mythological "silent lurker", who is reading in rapt attention to a lengthy session of bickering. Sort of like Bigfoot, right? Except that we DO have pictures of Bigfoot. It's pretty naive lurker who would take seriously anyone who churns out an endless stream of "spread confusion" questions like: "Is green purple? Is a sunrise asparagus? Why is there up? Did the sailor cube?" An observation: Sensible people try to be careful about what they say, or when they're not they will be embarrassed about failing to do so. THIS IS NOT A UNIVERSAL RULE OF BEHAVIOR. For those who have never had and never will have any credibility, they have no credibility to lose, and they act accordingly.

IBelieveInGod · 2 March 2011

JASONMITCHELL said:
IBelieveInGod said: A dog that is alive is an open system correct? A living dog is able to exchange food for energy and continue to produce new cells, which is what makes it an open system. But what about a dead dog?
from the point of view of thermodynamics - a dead dog is still an open system - still absorbing/losing heat from/to the environment- i.e. in the desert- if the dead dog was on the road - it would cook - are you asking why a dead dog is dead? (or IF?) if you are trying to conflate decay (decomposition of dead - formerly alive things) and 'entropy' you are either being disingenuous/propagating a known falsehood (evil) or showing your ignorance. so which is it - are you stupid or a liar?

But is a dead dog an open system in respect to its own brain and muscle cells? What good is energy without a way to exchange and use it? I have electricity in my home, but if I don't plug in my television into a working outlet, then it doesn't matter if the energy is there, my television still won't work unless I actually plug it in.

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2011

Ah; the irony.

fnxtr · 2 March 2011

Further responses are at AtBC, Biggy. You'll get nothing more from me here.

Stanton · 2 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said:
mrg said: Can somebody moderate this thread? Nobody has to be patient with this guy, his troll rap sheet is as long as his arm.
I'm asking a legitimate question, is a dead dog a closed system, in respect to it's brain cells, muscle cells, etc. Let me ask this can the brain cells in a dead dog continue to exchange energy and produce new brain cells?

You're lying through your teeth when you claim you're just "asking a legitimate question." All of your so-called "legitimate questions" have been nothing but traps to show how stupid and evil we are, while proving to everyone how smart and godly you are, asking questions that betray your own malicious stupidity.

Stanton · 2 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said:
JASONMITCHELL said:
IBelieveInGod said: A dog that is alive is an open system correct? A living dog is able to exchange food for energy and continue to produce new cells, which is what makes it an open system. But what about a dead dog?
from the point of view of thermodynamics - a dead dog is still an open system - still absorbing/losing heat from/to the environment- i.e. in the desert- if the dead dog was on the road - it would cook - are you asking why a dead dog is dead? (or IF?) if you are trying to conflate decay (decomposition of dead - formerly alive things) and 'entropy' you are either being disingenuous/propagating a known falsehood (evil) or showing your ignorance. so which is it - are you stupid or a liar?
But is a dead dog an open system in respect to its own brain and muscle cells? What good is energy without a way to exchange and use it? I have electricity in my home, but if I don't plug in my television into a working outlet, then it doesn't matter if the energy is there, my television still won't work unless I actually plug it in.

When a dog dies, its organs stop working. Your only purpose in asking us is to prove how stupid and evil we are, while also proving how you're so much smarter than all of the evil and stupid, God-hating scientist-devil-worshipers of the world. Now please explain to us how your question is supposed to magically disprove Biological Evolution and Abiogenesis, while affirming that your FAITH magically trumps science.

mrg · 2 March 2011

Stanton, please ... I know that you have some MASTER IMPERATIVE to respond to Biggie, but it could be done on ATBC just as well -- and it honestly annoys him.

IBelieveInGod · 2 March 2011

A living cell is an open system, because it is essentially a machine that has the ability to use the energy that exists in our universe and on our planet. It can only use the energy, because of all of the necessary chemical and biological processes that are in place, without any of the critical chemical and biological processes life would cease to exist.

Stanton · 2 March 2011

mrg said: Stanton, please ... I know that you have some MASTER IMPERATIVE to respond to Biggie, but it could be done on ATBC just as well -- and it honestly annoys him.

If we can trust that Lying Coward for Jesus to go to ATBC, I suppose so.

Malchus · 2 March 2011

I think that you do. No lurked will be interested in anything IBIG has to say. In this case, pointing out his errors, evasions, and incurable dishonesty is an exercise in logic, and in my case Christian charity. I hope and pray that IBIG will once more know the love of Christ. I pray for his entry into God's Grace.

JASONMITCHELL said:
mrg said:
JASONMITCHELL said: so which is it - are you stupid or a liar?
He's a bullshitter. And it works. You bit, didn't you?
I like to think that responding to trolls still serves to inform lurkers - but perhaps I deceive myself

IBelieveInGod · 3 March 2011

Can a dead tree make use of the energy in our universe (sun) or here on earth? What is the difference between a dead tree and a living one (besides the obvious)? Trees receive most of their energy from carbon dioxide by photosynthesis.

mrg · 3 March 2011

Stanton said: If we can trust that Lying Coward for Jesus to go to ATBC, I suppose so.

Well, he's not paying any real attention to anyone's replies whether you post here or on ATBC. But if you post to ATBC, you get to denounce him AND not play along with his little games any more.

IBelieveInGod · 3 March 2011

Energy transformation is extremely important for the metabolic activities of organisms, without the ability to transform energy for use all metabolic activities would cease.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 3 March 2011

IBelieveInGod said: Energy transformation is extremely important for the metabolic activities of organisms, without the ability to transform energy for use all metabolic activities would cease.

Pulling stuff from Duane Gish back in the 1970s? It wasn't a good argument then, and it's certainly decayed a bit since that time. Do you enjoy mouthing moldy oldies? Metabolic processes often proceed via paired reactions. A thermodynamically disfavored reaction coupled to one that is thermodynamically favored can proceed, and the result is still a net increase in entropy. There's nothing magic there. If the conditions needed to support one or both reactions (say, an interruption in oxygen supply or transport in an obligate aerobe), the result is cessation of the paired process. Again, no magic elan vital in sight, and no violation of 2LoT to be found.

Stanton · 3 March 2011

mrg said:
Stanton said: If we can trust that Lying Coward for Jesus to go to ATBC, I suppose so.
Well, he's not paying any real attention to anyone's replies whether you post here or on ATBC. But if you post to ATBC, you get to denounce him AND not play along with his little games any more.

At the very least, someone should kill this thread.

Malchus · 3 March 2011

I concur.

mrg said:
Stanton said: If we can trust that Lying Coward for Jesus to go to ATBC, I suppose so.
Well, he's not paying any real attention to anyone's replies whether you post here or on ATBC. But if you post to ATBC, you get to denounce him AND not play along with his little games any more.