Granville Sewell's unanswerable argument

From RationalWiki on the Second law of thermodynamics

"Let us suppose that there actually were some process in nature which violated the second law of thermodynamics. Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible? The only intelligent designers that we have familiarity with, humans and other more-or-less intelligent animals, are as much subject to the second law of thermodynamics as are non-intelligent agents. Indeed, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered as limitations on what the clever engineers of the 19th century were able to design. Intelligent designers are not able to construct perpetual motion machines. Intelligent designers don't bypass the second law of thermodynamics."

Perhaps Sewell will grace us with his presence here, and he can explain to us how humans get around the second law. I think we could have an interesting chat with him if he's willing to do so in an environment that allows for the free exchange of ideas.

Which reminds me ... Joe, has Sewell ever actually responded to your point that Sewell's argument implies that plants can't grow?

The “compensation” argument, used by a fictional character above to argue that because the Earth is an open system, tornados constructing houses and cars out of rubble here would not violate the second law . . . . “if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.”

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Sewell seems to suffer from having the same straw man concept of evolution exhibited by most intelligent design creationists.

The “compensation” argument, used by a fictional character above to argue that because the Earth is an open system, tornados constructing houses and cars out of rubble here would not violate the second law . . . . “if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.”

He doesn't, or doesn't want to, understand that evolution proceeds by small, incremental changes over long periods of time. The idea that the heat from the sun can provide sufficient energy to make an otherwise very unlikely chemical reaction occur is, I suppose, less useful for his purposes than that of tornados putting buildings together.

SWT said: Perhaps Sewell will grace us with his presence here, and he can explain to us how humans get around the second law. I think we could have an interesting chat with him if he's willing to do so in an environment that allows for the free exchange of ideas. Which reminds me ... Joe, has Sewell ever actually responded to your point that Sewell's argument implies that plants can't grow?

It's worth noting that all that is needed for natural selection on Earth is for organisms (in this case, plants) to be able to grow and reproduce. I am not certain, but I suspect Sewell is under the misapprehension that evolution would require a further input of energy on top of what would be needed to sustain a cycle of growth and reproduction. You know, to "drive the process". Or at any rate, I expect he wouldn't mind at all if the rest of us somehow came to make that error.

Granville, fetch a cloth...

SWT said: Perhaps Sewell will grace us with his presence here, and he can explain to us how humans get around the second law.

“if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is isolated, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.”

What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn't really an Intelligent Design argument -- it's just an old "scientific creationism" argument of Henry Morris, recycled. It's also blatantly wrong and reflects a misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

Yet the Discovery Institute Press actually publishes a short book of Sewell's. William Dembski has approvingly called attention to acceptance of Sewell's paper in Applied Mathematics Letters, Sewell's work has been publicized by the Disovery Institute's blog Evolution News and Views, and of course Uncommon Descent allows Sewell space and allows him to shut off comments. Perhaps they suspect that even some of their own frequent commenters would disagree.

I can't imagine what good they think they are doing for their reputation.

Well isn't that the way that real scientists behave? Publish your own book without any review and avoid the real scientific literature. Claim that your conclusions follow from the math, without actually doing any math. Ignore all of the real work and evidence in the field and just make up stuff that would only fool those less ignorant than yourself. Then, ignore all of the real experts who demonstrate why you are completely and utterly wrong. Then, repeat adnauseum with no attempt to learn anything or ever present any new arguments, let alone evidence.

Now in all fairness, I'm sure that is how creationists think that real science works. After all, it must be wrong, so how else can you explain the fact that it is accepted by so many people? This is nothing more than projection on a massive scale. Fortunately, it will serve to demonstrate to anyone who has two critical thinking neurons that these people are charlatans with no sense of decency, let alone any knowledge of science.

Oh well, at least it puts the lie to all claims of censorship once again. Whenever creationist trolls start complaining about being banished to the bathroom wall, we can always direct them to Uncommon Descent for the Uncommonly Dense.

What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn’t really an Intelligent Design argument – it’s just an old “scientific creationism” argument of Henry Morris, recycled. It’s also blatantly wrong and reflects a misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

In short, no. Sewell has not responded to my posts or to any of the people who have refuted him. He just keeps repeating himself but does not seem interested in responding to anyone. Which shows us that creationists have two ways to turn off comments, and this one is at least more honest.

My mother is half my size. Delivering me must have been hell.

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn't really an Intelligent Design argument -- it's just an old "scientific creationism" argument of Henry Morris, recycled. It's also blatantly wrong and reflects a misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn't really an Intelligent Design argument -- it's just an old "scientific creationism" argument of Henry Morris, recycled. It's also blatantly wrong and reflects a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Yet the Discovery Institute Press actually publishes a short book of Sewell's. William Dembski has approvingly called attention to acceptance of Sewell's paper in Applied Mathematics Letters, Sewell's work has been publicized by the Disovery Institute's blog Evolution News and Views, and of course Uncommon Descent allows Sewell space and allows him to shut off comments. Perhaps they suspect that even some of their own frequent commenters would disagree. I can't imagine what good they think they are doing for their reputation.

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn't really an Intelligent Design argument -- it's just an old "scientific creationism" argument of Henry Morris, recycled. It's also blatantly wrong and reflects a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. I can't imagine what good they think they are doing for their reputation.

SWT said: Don't forget the ID is a "big tent" -- any anti-evolution argument seems to be OK by them...

John said: WHAT REPUTATION Joe? You know full well that they are interested in appealing to Henry Morris' target audience. That's their raison d'etre for publishing Sewell's risible arguments again and again. All that the Disco Tute is interested in is peddling their mendacious intellectual porn to religious zealots who are proud of their scientific illiteracy.

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn't really an Intelligent Design argument -- it's just an old "scientific creationism" argument of Henry Morris, recycled. It's also blatantly wrong and reflects a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. ... I can't imagine what good they think they are doing for their reputation.

Atheistoclast said: All Sewell argues is that the law of entropy prevails in any closed physico-chemical system.

It indicates a tendency towards greater noise by diffusion rather than towards information (reduction in uncertainty).

terenzioiltroll said: Noise? Diffusion? Information? Are you sure you are referring to the same definition of entropy as the other readers?

For a few years now, the Dishonesty Institute has been going back to its roots.

Which are Young Earth Creationism and xian fundie death cults.

I haven't paid much attention to them for a while now, but IIRC, many of their fellows are YEC's.

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn't really an Intelligent Design argument -- it's just an old "scientific creationism" argument of Henry Morris, recycled.

Atheistoclast said: It is a fundamental law of Nature that all physical systems have a propensity to degenerate if left alone.

The Darwinian argument is that mutation is an engine for evolution that can provide the material for innovation, thereby defying the law of entropy.

As such, evolution would appear to be in direct contradiction to everything we know about physical processes.

...unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable.

eric said: Mutation is perfectly consistent with the system's energy becoming more evenly distributed among microstates. For example, when a solar photon produces a point mutation, energy from the photon is being distributed between various chemical bonds, translational and rotational states. The atoms within the organism may experience a decrease in entropy, but the universe's entropy increases because of what happens to that photon. Looking solely at what happens to the organism and ignoring the photon is to miss a critical part of what's going on.

Clean up on aisle one.

Atheistoclast - by that reasoning, it's impossible for children to grow.

Atheistoclast said: Look. All things in the universe are in a state of energy dissipation - take our own sun as the best example.

It means that physical degeneration is the law of all natural things.

They cannot expect to retain their optimal quality forever.

But evolution supposes that mutations, which reduce fitness levels,

are actually causing an increase in information and capability,

rather than that of noise and uncertainty. That goes against the grain of all scientific understanding.

The general trend is towards entropy and disorder.

Hence, evolutionism is unscientific.

InvincibleIronyMan said: It's worth noting that all that is needed for natural selection on Earth is for organisms (in this case, plants) to be able to grow and reproduce.

Atheistoclast said:

Joe Felsenstein said: What astonishes me is not that Sewell makes the argument, but that the Discovery Institute is willing to associate themselves with it. It isn't really an Intelligent Design argument -- it's just an old "scientific creationism" argument of Henry Morris, recycled. It's also blatantly wrong and reflects a misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

I'm astonished you don't understand it. All Sewell argues is that the law of entropy prevails in any closed physico-chemical system. It indicates a tendency towards greater noise by diffusion rather than towards information (reduction in uncertainty). And we see this effect when we actually study gene sequences: we see a dispersal of various mutations that don't improve fitness but don't necessarily degrade it either. This is best seen in gene duplication where, due to a relaxation in functional constraint, we observe all sorts of degenerative developments. Of course, the Darwinian view is that gene duplication leads to increased information but that would then violate the law of entropy because a more permissive regime of selection allows for a greater diffusion and fixation of deleterious alleles in the population. I would argue that mutational pressures cause a violation the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and so disturbs the order inherent within the biological system. Over time, this becomes more prominent. Natural selection can maintain and conserve information, but it is constantly opposing the general trend towards greater entropy and genomic deterioration - as Sanford and others have talked about.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

fittest meme said:

InvincibleIronyMan said: It's worth noting that all that is needed for natural selection on Earth is for organisms (in this case, plants) to be able to grow and reproduce.

Oh . . . that's all. You do understand that "growing and reproducing" (or in other words "life") is the phenomena that we are trying to explain the origins of. To use a living organism as evidence to support your claim that the SLOT is not broken by your materialist explanation of life's origin is circular reasoning. It's the same logical error Joe has fallen into. The order he sees in the weeds that grow in his yard would not be possible with just material and energy alone. The genetic information housed in the seeds is a critical component. Joe can't just assume that the seeds are simply matter. If I was sitting in Joe Felsensteins class, I'd raise my hand and ask a few questions about his weed story: 1. Could energy and matter alone (without the information housed in the seeds) have created the plants? 2. Where did the genetic information housed in the weed seeds come from? 3. If the answer to question 2 is that such information is naturally emergent from energy and matter alone, can we duplicate this phenomena experimentally without utilizing existing information or an intelligent agent?

fittest meme said: [Exactly the same misinformed things he's said in the past]

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said: Straw man. Some mutations reduce fitness levels.

I seriously hope you are not teaching this blatant falsehood: The vast majority of mutations are deleterious. Toward a Realistic Model of Mutations Affecting Fitness http://www.indiana.edu/~lynchlab/PDF/Lynch116.pdf

In summary, the vast majority of mutations are deleterious. This is one of the most well-established principles of evolutionary genetics, supported by both molecular and quantitative- genetic data. This provides an explanation for many key genetic properties of natural and laboratory populations.

Atheistoclast said: I'm astonished you don't understand it.

All Sewell argues is that the law of entropy prevails in any closed physico-chemical system. It indicates a tendency towards greater noise by diffusion rather than towards information (reduction in uncertainty). And we see this effect when we actually study gene sequences: we see a dispersal of various mutations that don't improve fitness but don't necessarily degrade it either.

I would argue that mutational pressures cause a violation the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and so disturbs the order inherent within the biological system.

DS said: Clean up on aisle one.

Atheistoclast said: But evolution supposes that mutations, which reduce fitness levels, are actually causing an increase in information and capability, rather than that of noise and uncertainty.

That goes against the grain of all scientific understanding.

The general trend is towards entropy and disorder. Hence, evolutionism is unscientific.

And just to warn all commenters here. Discussion of mutation effects will move to the Bathroom Wall, and soon. Including both the troll and the troll-chasers. If you want your comments to remain here they should be about the topic of this thread, not mutation effects.

I was about to ask how Creationists like Atheistoclast think everything tends towards "disorder" and away from "complexity" by bringing up how the Universe went from three elements to 92 (more if you count the artificial ones), simple H2 molecules to countless millions of naturally occurring chemical compounds, almost uniformly distributed energy to the massive energy gradients within star systems, and from specks of inactive dust to planets with orderly layers of material sorted by an interplay of density, chemistry, and convective processes.

But then I remembered that most anti-evolutionist have to deny cosmology, geology, and chemistry to maintain their denial, so I realized the futility of trying to appeal to facts and the Universe as it is. They'd rather have the Universe as it isn't.

fittest meme said: 1. Could energy and matter alone (without the information housed in the seeds) have created the plants?

2. Where did the genetic information housed in the weed seeds come from?

3. If the answer to question 2 is that such information is naturally emergent from energy and matter alone, can we duplicate this phenomena experimentally without utilizing existing information or an intelligent agent?

Atheistoclast said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Sewell says nothing about mutations. I will not allow this thread to be hijacked to discuss effects of mutations -- that can happen on the Bathroom Wall.

Entropy, and indeed the whole area of thermodynamics, is based on change. If there were no change, there would be perpetual equilibrium (the HD principle). Evolution is a process of change. The cause for biological change is mutation. Now deal with it, rather than avoiding it.

SWT said:But Joe Felsenstein's point (you know, the actual topic here) is that the logical consequence of Sewell's argument is that life is impossible. Why won't you deal with that, rather than avoiding it?

The fact that this thread requires supervision and moderation confirms Sewell's predictions about the 2nd law. If left alone, this thread could degenerate into a discussion about everything and nothing - troll or no troll. You just can't expect things to regulate and organize themselves since entropy is always on the increase.

Atheistoclast said: Entropy, and indeed the whole area of thermodynamics, is based on change. If there were no change, there would be perpetual equilibrium (the HD principle). Evolution is a process of change. The cause for biological change is mutation. Now deal with it, rather than avoiding it.

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said:But Joe Felsenstein's point (you know, the actual topic here) is that the logical consequence of Sewell's argument is that life is impossible. Why won't you deal with that, rather than avoiding it?

I don't know what JF is arguing.

Not sure if it's funny or sad how the Pandasthumb.org has become the personal blog of one idiotic god-trooper. One who isn't shy of outright lying and trolling on behalf of his doctrine.

This whole 2LOT strategy is so stupid.

When I started out as a science undergraduate, I had to cover basic thermodynamics. It was part of General Chemistry. Obviously, the level of expertise imparted is below that of the physicists and engineers posting here who dealt with it in more advanced courses, but thermodynamics is a basic part of getting a bachelor of science degree where I studied. Any major.

General Chemistry was consistent with General Physics (also required). Organic Chemistry was consistent with Gen Chem. Biochemistry was consistent with organic and general chemistry. Molecular biology and genetics are consistent with biochemistry. They're all part of cell biology. It's all interconnected.

If Sewell and the trolls were right about thermodynamics, that would mean that thermodynamics was wrong.

You can't contradict away observed reality by claiming that it isn't consistent with thermodynamics.

If you think it isn't, either thermodynamics is wrong, or your understanding of it is wrong. Guess what? It's your understanding of it that's wrong.

Atheistoclast said: Look. All things in the universe are in a state of energy dissipation - take our own sun as the best example. It means that physical degeneration is the law of all natural things. They cannot expect to retain their optimal quality forever. But evolution supposes that mutations, which reduce fitness levels, are actually causing an increase in information and capability, rather than that of noise and uncertainty. That goes against the grain of all scientific understanding. The general trend is towards entropy and disorder. Hence, evolutionism is unscientific.

Bozorgmehr has effectively declared that the loose caricature of the 2nd law developed by Morris in 1962 is the "one true law", and thereby simply dismisses the actual 2nd law as used in physics and chemistry. You might as well argue with a potato, as they are equally ignorant, and equally capable of actually learning. Bozorgmehr is using the same tactic as Sewell -- repeat the same "argument" over and over and over and simply deny or ignore the actual science. The success of the tactic is contingent on the ignorance of the audience and its desire to have someone say that evolution can't be true.

Rumraket said: Not sure if it's funny or sad how the Pandasthumb.org has become the personal blog of one idiotic god-trooper. One who isn't shy of outright lying and trolling on behalf of his doctrine.

fittest meme said: Oh . . . that's all. You do understand that "growing and reproducing" (or in other words "life") is the phenomena that we are trying to explain the origins of. To use a living organism as evidence to support your claim that the SLOT is not broken by your materialist explanation of life's origin is circular reasoning.

It's the same logical error Joe has fallen into. The order he sees in the weeds that grow in his yard would not be possible with just material and energy alone. The genetic information housed in the seeds is a critical component. Joe can't just assume that the seeds are simply matter.

If I was sitting in Joe Felsensteins class, I'd raise my hand and ask a few questions about his weed story: 1. Could energy and matter alone (without the information housed in the seeds) have created the plants? 2. Where did the genetic information housed in the weed seeds come from? 3. If the answer to question 2 is that such information is naturally emergent from energy and matter alone, can we duplicate this phenomena experimentally without utilizing existing information or an intelligent agent?

co said: You're wrong, wrong, wrong. By saying this: "All things in the universe are in a state of energy dissipation - take our own sun as the best example", you're absolutely ignoring the FIRST law of thermodynamics. But of course you don't understand that, either. What's more, both the first law and second law are that energy is _locally_ conserved, and entropy is _locally_ paraconserved. Until you get that, you're just wanking. And so far, you're just wanking.

That goes against the grain of all scientific understanding. The general trend is towards entropy and disorder. Hence, evolutionism is unscientific.

in spite of the typos...

mplavcan said: Bozorgmehr has effectively declared that the loose caricature of the 2nd law developed by Morris in 1962 is the "one true law", and thereby simply dismisses the actual 2nd law as used in physics and chemistry. You might as well argue with a potato, as they are equally ignorant, and equally capable of actually learning. Bozorgmehr is using the same tactic as Sewell -- repeat the same "argument" over and over and over and simply deny or ignore the actual science. The success of the tactic is contingent on the ignorance of the audience and its desire to have someone say that evolution can't be true.

A half-baked potato.

Bozorgmehr: study this for a loooonnnnnnggggggg time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

Oh dear God, another thermodynamic illiterate.

mplavcan said: Bozorgmehr: study this for a loooonnnnnnggggggg time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

I rest my case.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: Bozorgmehr has effectively declared that the loose caricature of the 2nd law developed by Morris in 1962 is the "one true law", and thereby simply dismisses the actual 2nd law as used in physics and chemistry. You might as well argue with a potato, as they are equally ignorant, and equally capable of actually learning. Bozorgmehr is using the same tactic as Sewell -- repeat the same "argument" over and over and over and simply deny or ignore the actual science. The success of the tactic is contingent on the ignorance of the audience and its desire to have someone say that evolution can't be true.

I have to repeat it because the folks on the this forum are clearly suffering from some sort of neural entropy. The more things are left to themselves, the more likely they are to deteriorate - contrary to what evolution claims (namely that things are likely to improve their situation). The 2nd law is a universal law of decay with respect to all natural phenomena. Everything appears to change eventually, and disorder(entropy) increases. This means that the the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. It has direct implications for evolutionism because it suggests that the opportunity and means for evolutionary development decreases, rather than increases, with time. Let's take an example: Chemical compounds are liable to separate into smaller, less complex, ones as the conditions change. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. Yet Darwinists insist that change in biochemical molecules results in them becoming more ordered and more information-rich in nature with due passage of time - again, the exact opposite of what we should expect.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: Bozorgmehr: study this for a loooonnnnnnggggggg time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

Yes, it does logically follow. The same principles apply. Everything depends on the constant flow of energy, information and matter. This includes biological systems. The 2nd law of thermodynamics effectively refutes all spurious notions of self-organization and emergent complexity. It shows that the order we scientifically observe in the material universe has been imposed by "something else".

Atheistoclast said: The 1st law states that, overall in the universe, energy is conserved.

The 2nd law states that it is inevitably dissipated and diffused in a system.

Spontaneous natural processes increase entropy irreversibly.

You just miserably fail to understand this basic point of physics.

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: Bozorgmehr has effectively declared that the loose caricature of the 2nd law developed by Morris in 1962 is the "one true law", and thereby simply dismisses the actual 2nd law as used in physics and chemistry. You might as well argue with a potato, as they are equally ignorant, and equally capable of actually learning. Bozorgmehr is using the same tactic as Sewell -- repeat the same "argument" over and over and over and simply deny or ignore the actual science. The success of the tactic is contingent on the ignorance of the audience and its desire to have someone say that evolution can't be true.

The more things are left to themselves, the more likely they are to deteriorate - contrary to what evolution claims (namely that things are likely to improve their situation). The 2nd law is a universal law of decay with respect to all natural phenomena. Everything appears to change eventually, and disorder(entropy) increases.

This means that the the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. It has direct implications for evolutionism because it suggests that the opportunity and means for evolutionary development decreases, rather than increases, with time.

Let's take an example: Chemical compounds are liable to separate into smaller, less complex, ones as the conditions change.

In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Well, at least it is easy to see creationists are unable to create information even if the genome has no problem. (Variation creates Kolmogorov complexity, selection accepts Shannon information from the environment.)

@ SWT:

"I have mixed feelings about the information point, since Bozorgmehr needs to give us an objective definition of information so that “information” can be quantified in an observer-neutral way."

I agree, and I don't see how that will happen. Information is a measure relative to a system, it isn't an inherent property.

Change the system, or change the measure, and the amount of information changes. Creationists understand information as little as they understand entropy or biology.

@ fittest meme:

"To use a living organism as evidence to support your claim that the SLOT is not broken by your materialist explanation of life’s origin is circular reasoning."

You truly know nothing about science.

Science _depends_ on such circular "reasoning". The theories that makes science predictive builds on a subset of the observational facts that they predict. In the precise moment a theory is fully tested, the relation between fact and theory is circular.

New observation or new theory breaks that impasse, and we continue to work towards that perfect and useful circularity once again.

That aside, the simple observation of growth isn't based on circular reasoning because it isn't theory based but only fact based. We observe that living organisms exists and that they obey thermodynamics, as they must, when they grow. Both observations have been tested plenty on small scales (by assessing individual organisms metabolism) and large scales (by assessing Sun-Earth energy balance).

And Sewell makes the erroneous claim that this can't happen. Obviously if his hypothesis can't abide by organisms growing it is invalid.

Another problem is that he can't abide refrigerators, which is another thing creationists routinely claim is impossible. Clearly the reduction in uncertainty in particles diminishing energy levels (and then everything else quantum) with increasingly colder temperatures increases creationist information "but that would then violate the law of entropy because a more permissive regime of [cooling] allows for a greater diffusion and fixation of deleterious [cool particles] in the population."

rossum said: Take some salt. Dissolve it in water. What is the entropy of the salt? Leave the dissolved salt in a saucer in the sun. Wait for the water to evaporate. What is the entropy of the salt, now crystallised? Is it greater or less than the entropy of the dissolved salt? Was this a "spontaneous natural process"? Was the entropy of the salt decreased?

fittest meme said: If I was sitting in Joe Felsensteins class, I'd raise my hand and ask a few questions about his weed story: 1. Could energy and matter alone (without the information housed in the seeds) have created the plants? 2. Where did the genetic information housed in the weed seeds come from? 3. If the answer to question 2 is that such information is naturally emergent from energy and matter alone, can we duplicate this phenomena experimentally without utilizing existing information or an intelligent agent?

Clean up on aisle three.

… We obtain the equation ∫dQ/T = S - S₀ which, while somewhat differently arranged, is the same as that which was formerly used to determine S. If we wish to designate S by a proper name we can say of it that it is the transformation content of the body, in the same way that we say of the quantity U that it is the heat and work content of the body. However, since I think it is better to take the names of such quantities as these, which are important for science, from the ancient languages, so that they can be introduced without change into all the modern languages, I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word η τροπη, a transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy, since both these quantities, which are to be known by these names, are so nearly related to each other in their physical significance that a certain similarity in their names seemed to me advantageous. …

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. "Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

It's been a tough night for Joe Bozorgmehr, maybe he should relax with drink on the rocks.

Oh wait - according to his version of thermodynamics, ice cubes can't exist.

Mike Elzinga said: As long as Sewell, Bozorgmehr, and the rest of the creationists here want to keep this zombie alive, then I will continue to put Henry Morris’s original pseudo-scholarship up here and juxtapose it against reality. And as I have often said, this deliberate concoction by Morris - to use the second law of thermodynamics as the foundation of ID/creationism - has become The Fundamental Misconception of all of ID/creationism. As Bozo is showing, the misconception permeates every ID/creationist argument about how complex systems come together. This is from Rudolph Clausius in Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Vol. 125, p. 353, 1865, under the title “Ueber verschiedene für de Anwendung bequeme Formen der Hauptgleichungen der mechanischen Wärmetheorie.” ("On Several Convenient Forms of the Fundamental Equations of the Mechanical Theory of Heat.") It is also available in A Source Book in Physics, Edited by William Francis Magie, Harvard University Press, 1963, page 234. (Note: Q represents the quantity of heat, T the absolute temperature, and S will be what Clausius names as entropy)

… We obtain the equation ∫dQ/T = S - S₀ which, while somewhat differently arranged, is the same as that which was formerly used to determine S. If we wish to designate S by a proper name we can say of it that it is the transformation content of the body, in the same way that we say of the quantity U that it is the heat and work content of the body. However, since I think it is better to take the names of such quantities as these, which are important for science, from the ancient languages, so that they can be introduced without change into all the modern languages, I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word η τροπη, a transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy, since both these quantities, which are to be known by these names, are so nearly related to each other in their physical significance that a certain similarity in their names seemed to me advantageous. …

Clausius apparently translates η τροπη from the Greek as Umgestaltung and not Umdrehung. However, this doesn’t matter because he modified the word to entropy for the reasons he indicated. On the other hand, here is Henry Morris’ pseudo-scholarship back in 1973.

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. "Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time.

Complexity is temperature dependent. All of us here have recognized repeatedly, and all of us have told you so; you do not understand any basic concepts in any of the sciences PERIOD.

harold said: It's been a tough night for Joe Bozorgmehr, maybe he should relax with drink on the rocks. Oh wait - according to his version of thermodynamics, ice cubes can't exist.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time.

Complexity is temperature dependent. All of us here have recognized repeatedly, and all of us have told you so; you do not understand any basic concepts in any of the sciences PERIOD.

Mike, forget about concepts, the guy clearly doesn't understand basic things like water freezing into ice crystals.

Atheistoclast said:Look at radioactive isotopes: they are in an inexorable state of decay

co said: You're wrong, wrong, wrong. By saying this: "All things in the universe are in a state of energy dissipation - take our own sun as the best example", you're absolutely ignoring the FIRST law of thermodynamics. But of course you don't understand that, either. What's more, both the first law and second law are that energy is _locally_ conserved, and entropy is _locally_ paraconserved. Until you get that, you're just wanking. And so far, you're just wanking.

Atheistoclast replied: The 1st law states that, overall in the universe, energy is conserved.

Atheistoclast said: The 2nd law states that it is inevitably dissipated and diffused in a system.

Atheistoclast said: Spontaneous natural processes increase entropy irreversibly.

harold said: It's been a tough night for Joe Bozorgmehr, maybe he should relax with drink on the rocks. Oh wait - according to his version of thermodynamics, ice cubes can't exist.

Atheistoclast said:

harold said: It's been a tough night for Joe Bozorgmehr, maybe he should relax with drink on the rocks. Oh wait - according to his version of thermodynamics, ice cubes can't exist.

I see nothing but obfuscation and denial in this thread. I will let Sewell speak for himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHOnqDNJ0Bc

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: I see nothing but obfuscation and denial in this thread.

You see nothing but getting your ass whipped here on this thread.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: I see nothing but obfuscation and denial in this thread.

You see nothing but getting your ass whipped here on this thread.

Be fair, Mike. He could be looking in a mirror.

Mike Elzinga said:

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: I see nothing but obfuscation and denial in this thread.

You see nothing but getting your ass whipped here on this thread.

Be fair, Mike. He could be looking in a mirror.

Ah yes; the narcissist thing. One wonders what he sees. I doubt he has an adoring audience he is playing to. No charisma.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: I see nothing but obfuscation and denial in this thread.

You see nothing but getting your ass whipped here on this thread.

Be fair, Mike. He could be looking in a mirror.

Ah yes; the narcissist thing. One wonders what he sees. I doubt he has an adoring audience he is playing to. No charisma.

Actually, my point is that if he were looking in a mirror, he'd have ample opportunity to see obfuscation and denial ...

Well at least when he looks into the mirror he gets the attention he craves.

I sometimes wonder what is going on in Sewell’s mind about this entropy thing. He was really miffed about having his paper pulled; and he has been throwing a hissy fit about it ever since. He has brought it up at several intervals now.

The guy presumably has enough math background to understand entropy and thermodynamics; it’s not that hard.

And what does the DI and UD think they have to gain by constantly doing this “walk-the-zombie” routine? Clearly they have an audience of sorts; you can see them posting over a UD. They never learn.

And we see the clown circus that is the current slate of Presidential candidates of the Republican Party.

It’s a bit disturbing that there is a large constituency out there in the public that continues to buy into this stuff. No matter how often and how thoroughly these zombies are killed, they just keep being put back on the marionette strings and danced around by these sectarian extremists.

This crap has been going on since at least the early 1970s. Yet the ICR, AiG, and the DI retain these “weapons” in their arsenal, tell their followers not to use them, and then bring them right back out and walk them around again.

I guess that if they can’t be original, the only thing they have left is to be repetitive.

Atheistoclast replied to a comment from co | November 18, 2011 4:21 PM | Reply The 1st law states that, overall in the universe, energy is conserved. The 2nd law states that it is inevitably dissipated and diffused in a system. Spontaneous natural processes increase entropy irreversibly

eric said: Mike, forget about concepts, the guy clearly doesn't understand basic things like water freezing into ice crystals.

Actually Mike the 'narcissism' motivation is bang on. Think of all the half-baked twits that have become rudimentrally famous because of their championing of ID; Dembski, unfortunately springs to mind. He didn't defend ID because of any great belief in its inerrancy (even though he does), no, he supported the idea because it made Ann Coulter call him, 'the Newton of ID'. This is vanity pure and simple, a schoolboy yelling for attention because he doesn't have a clue how to get it otherwise. The traditional (Darwinian?) method is to have an insight. Once you have made your insight go around the world in a wooden boat and find evidence to support your insight. Upon doing this write, agonise over how the world will receive your insight, and eventually publish; reluctantly.

Ateisthag do some fucking work, and go over to AIG, they'll lick your arse, after all Kenny Ham is on the same ego trip as yourself.

robert van bakel said (of ATOC): ... after all Kenny Ham is on the same ego trip as yourself.

Energy is like money: As long as we have money to pay for it, we may buy, consume, and use stuff. We increase the entropy of our bank accout, but satisfy our needs and desires. The process repeats as long as there is money in the bank. Replace the bank with the sun and the consumer with mother earth with all its chemical and physical activity. We have almost a bottomless bank vault or perpetual motion engine - as long as the sun shines. (Or the nuclear generator deep down in the Earth has fuel left)

When all is over, entropy in the universe will have increased but in the meantime we have had our fun. That's the glory of entropy: We get something in return! Entropy freaks, especially of the genetic entropy kind only look at the debit side and ignore the credit that we get.

Energy is all it takes to keep the show going, entropy is a problem for the accounting department only.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument used by Creationist is really a very good one. Most Creation Science arguments depend on the Creationist getting the Science wrong and the punter in the pew knowing no better. This one is doubleplusgood however. It meets the first two requirements with the additional advantage that opponents not only don't understand Thermodynamics but have the queerest notions about the Second Law. Thus the Creationist makes a nonsensical argument which is answered by another nonsensical argument which provides the Creationist with even more material to work with...and so on, ad infinitum, ad absurdum, or ad nauseum.

The article by Granville Sewell is just a dumbed down version of his Applied Mathematics Letters paper which merely throws a few equations in to justify publication. His argument is just re-cycled Henry Morris and should have been rejected for lack of originality and the fact that he has already published similar stuff elsewhere. "'Can ‘Anything’ Happen in an Open System?' This is based on a 2005 online article in the American Spectator" quote from "In The Beginning And Other Essays on Intelligent Design" by Granville Sewell. In 2005, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. published the second edition of "The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations" by Granville Sewell. In particular there is an Appendix D, which is titled "Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?" If that wasn't enough, there is an on-line video, based on Appendix D, entitled, "A Second Look at the Second Law" by Granville Sewell:

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/secondlaw.htm

There are some real problems in understanding all this stuff. To start with, the 2nd Law was formulated in the 19th century; any quote from these pioneers must be understood in the context of scientific understanding at the time - Boltzmann was still struggling to get people to accept atoms!

Even with an understanding of matter on the atomic level, 'Entropy' remained a quantity that could be clearly calculated from actual measurements but difficult to describe. Unfortunately this led to it acquiring mystical connotations on one hand and attempted simplification in terms of shuffled cards and untidy rooms on the other. As the analogies were easy to understand, they took on a life of their own. Even Steven Hawking, Jim Al-Khalili, and Professor Brian Cox have been known to resort to them. All is made clear by Dr. Frank L. Lambert:

http://entropysite.oxy.edu/

To make matters more confusing, the term 'Entropy' is also used in Information Theory. This may or may not be related to Thermodynamic Entropy - anyone making a connection needs to tread very carefully. There are endless opportunities for mischief here.

One conclusion from the 2nd Law is that, as all 'real processes' are 'irreversible', things can never go back to how they were before. This leads to the pessimistic view that the Universe is dying. Putting it all together, in the Creationist way, we get:

'Big Bang' = explosion = disorder = high entropy. Evolution requires a reduction in entropy. The Universe is a 'closed system'. Entropy cannot decrease in a closed system. Therefore...

That was quick to write but would take a very long time to explain why it is very, very, wrong. Explaining why a 'Singularity' has low entropy, explaining that 'Entropy' is a state variable, explaining that complex molecules can have a higher entropy than their constituants, explaining that a 'closed system' is defined by its boundary.

Unfortunately, arguments like: evolution is possible because the increase of entropy in the Sun more than compensates for the decease of entropy on the Earth [the 'open system' argument], is equally wrong. Again it takes some explaining. It is enough to set Henry Morris of onto another line of attack, Granville Sewell, however, understands it and can turn it to his advantage. Having shown up the error in your opponents reply to your erroneous argument, you are in a much better position to make even more erroneous statements.

A real understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything requires the realization that we live in a 'Chaotic' system (in the modern sense, not the 'disorder' idea) that is driven by immense sources of energy surrounded by vast regions of emptiness at almost zero temperature which keep us in a state that is dynamically stable but far from equilibrium.

Atheistoclast said:

rossum said: Take some salt. Dissolve it in water. What is the entropy of the salt? Leave the dissolved salt in a saucer in the sun. Wait for the water to evaporate. What is the entropy of the salt, now crystallised? Is it greater or less than the entropy of the dissolved salt? Was this a "spontaneous natural process"? Was the entropy of the salt decreased?

It depends entirely on the amount of energy available. But the quantity of useable energy in the universe is declining - that is a basic tenet of the 2nd law. So, it is true that the process of evaporation is itself inevitably going to become impossible as it is energy-dependent.

Mike Elzinga said: I sometimes wonder what is going on in Sewell’s mind about this entropy thing.

Eric Finn said: eric, my namesake, I do not think that the opening post really referred to unsettled questions in thermodynamics.

SWT said: Sewell's argument implies that plants cannot live.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: Sewell's argument implies that plants cannot live.

That is not the point of Sewell's argument.

fittest meme said: P.S. SWT, iF you want me to comment on a paper please post a link to it.

eric said:

fittest meme said: 3. If the answer to question 2 is that such information is naturally emergent from energy and matter alone, can we duplicate this phenomena experimentally without utilizing existing information or an intelligent agent?

This is a gotcha question and an insincere request. Any experimental setup we describe, you'll say doesn't count because the humans running it are/were intelligent. But prove me wrong. Respond to this, and tell me you won't disqualify an experiment based merely on the fact that the human experimenters running it are intelligent, and I'll see if I can find an example that fits your request.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: Sewell's argument implies that plants cannot live.

That is not the point of Sewell's argument.

[Previously refuted BS deleted] P.S. SWT, iF you want me to comment on a paper please post a link to it.

fittest meme said: Does it concern you that a theory you present as fact cannot be empirically proven?

fittest meme said: Does it concern you that a theory you present as fact cannot be empirically proven?

fittest meme said:

SWT said: Sewell's argument implies that plants cannot live.

That is not the point of Sewell's argument.

I believe he is arguing that the order we see in this universe (which materialists understand to be a closed system starting with the “big-bang”) requires some outside input beyond the randomly directed effects of material and energy. He is not arguing that reality denies the SLOT … he is revealing that the materialist explanation of reality requires a denial of this scientific law.

Entropy is defined as the amount of energy not available to do work in a closed system. Work is then defined as effort or activity directed toward the accomplishment of something.

We can’t just combine sunlight, CO2 , H20, etc and expect to get a plant … just like we can’t expect to put flour, sugar, butter, and chocolate chips in an oven and hope to get cookies. To avoid wasted energy and ingredients we must of course, follow a precise recipe to get the desired (pre-conceived) product. Likewise the energy contained in sunlight had to be precisely and purposefully directed to perform the process of photosynthesis that eventually led to the growth and reproduction of a certain species of weed. For this process to take place instructions in the form of coded genetic information is contained in the seed. The plant could not have grown without it.

Aside from isolated pockets (open systems like the earth), the universe, including all energy, matter, is most likely increasing in entropy … useable energy is decreasing. The fact however, that there was useable energy available in the first place, demonstrates that our universe like the weed in Joe’s yard, is not a closed system. Something transcends the empirically measurable material world. Whatever that is, it is the source of material, energy and purposeful information. Those of us proposing a theory of ID recognize the reality of this transcendence and are pursuing a better understanding of its nature through all sources of knowledge and evidence.

fittest meme said: That is not the point of Sewell's argument. I believe he is arguing that the order we see in this universe (which materialists understand to be a closed system starting with the "big-bang") requires some outside input beyond the randomly directed effects of material and energy. He is not arguing that reality denies the SLOT . . . he is revealing that the materialist explanation of reality requires a denial of this scientific law.

Granville Sewell 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.

fittest meme: let's focus on the isolated example of Joe's weeds. Obviously, the weed plant is on open system and the decrease in entropy it demonstrates is the result of inputs from outside sources.

What Joe doesn't seem to recognize is that one of these inputs is something that materialism can't account for; to have a reasonable conversation on entropy we must acknowledge the reality of information in biological systems.

fittest meme said: Does it concern you that a theory you present as fact cannot be empirically proven?

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

SWT said: I believe I've given you a reference to a paper published by Kauffman 25 years ago (J. Theor. Biol.) that is directly relevant to your assertions. Have you read it yet? Do you have a refutation of his arguments?

Kauffman, S.A., “Autocatalytic Sets of Proteins,” J. Theor. Biol. 119 (1986) 1-24. From the abstract: This article investigates the possibility that the emergence of reflexively autocatalytic sets of peptides and polypeptides may be an essentially inevitable collective property of any sufficiently complex set of polypeptides.

fittest meme said: The fact however, that there was useable energy available in the first place, demonstrates that our universe like the weed in Joe's yard, is not a closed system. Something transcends the empirically measurable material world. Whatever that is, it is the source of material, energy and purposeful information.

Joe Felsenstein said: (My whole training and research is on evolution of biological information, actually). But whatever information is in biological systems, when a weed grows, it is using the information it already has, and that information is not a later "input" that is necessary to get the seed to grow. The seed already has the information it needs. The "inputs" it gets include solar energy, but not information. So "fittest meme" is totally wrong there.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: I believe I've given you a reference to a paper published by Kauffman 25 years ago (J. Theor. Biol.) that is directly relevant to your assertions. Have you read it yet? Do you have a refutation of his arguments?

Kauffman, S.A., “Autocatalytic Sets of Proteins,” J. Theor. Biol. 119 (1986) 1-24. From the abstract: This article investigates the possibility that the emergence of reflexively autocatalytic sets of peptides and polypeptides may be an essentially inevitable collective property of any sufficiently complex set of polypeptides.

Pretty hard to add any more qualifiers than that isn't it? The only fact you can point to here is that this guy wrote this paper investigating the possibility of something. He doesn't prove anything that contradicts any assertion I made. What exactly is the assertion I made that this paper addresses? Why should I read it? What is it going to prove?

Atheistoclast said:

mplavcan said: Bozorgmehr: study this for a loooonnnnnnggggggg time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

Yes, it does logically follow. The same principles apply. Everything depends on the constant flow of energy, information and matter. This includes biological systems. The 2nd law of thermodynamics effectively refutes all spurious notions of self-organization and emergent complexity. It shows that the order we scientifically observe in the material universe has been imposed by "something else".

Scott F said:

Joe Felsenstein said: (My whole training and research is on evolution of biological information, actually). But whatever information is in biological systems, when a weed grows, it is using the information it already has, and that information is not a later "input" that is necessary to get the seed to grow. The seed already has the information it needs. The "inputs" it gets include solar energy, but not information. So "fittest meme" is totally wrong there.

To be a bit pedantic, if I understand correctly the seed and young plant does get some new information as it grows: it "learns" about its environment in the form of energy and chemical gradients. (The nature versus nurture thing.) It already "knows" how to grow a root, but it "learns" which direction its roots need to grow, through input from the environment. At least I think that makes sense. IANABiologist. OTOH, that has nothing to do with what "fittest meme" is babbling about.

Scott F said:

Joe Felsenstein said: The seed already has the information it needs. The "inputs" it gets include solar energy, but not information. So "fittest meme" is totally wrong there.

To be a bit pedantic, if I understand correctly the seed and young plant does get some new information as it grows: it "learns" about its environment in the form of energy and chemical gradients.

OTOH, that has nothing to do with what "fittest meme" is babbling about.

… We obtain the equation ∫dQ/T = S - S₀ which, while somewhat differently arranged, is the same as that which was formerly used to determine S. If we wish to designate S by a proper name we can say of it that it is the transformation content of the body, in the same way that we say of the quantity U that it is the heat and work content of the body. However, since I think it is better to take the names of such quantities as these, which are important for science, from the ancient languages, so that they can be introduced without change into all the modern languages, I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word η τροπη, a transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy, since both these quantities, which are to be known by these names, are so nearly related to each other in their physical significance that a certain similarity in their names seemed to me advantageous. …

nasty.brutish.tall said:

fittest meme said: Does it concern you that a theory you present as fact cannot be empirically proven?

I find this comment absolutely fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the theory you favor is that an intelligent agent (which by necessity would be a non-human agent) somehow input the "information" required for subsequent life to arise. You convict science for not being able to duplicate experimentally the process of life arising from nonliving matter by natural processes. But can you pass your own litmus test? That is, can you experimentally duplicate the event or process of a non-human intelligent agent inputting information into nonliving matter such that life subsequently arises?

fittest meme said:

nasty.brutish.tall said:

fittest meme said: Does it concern you that a theory you present as fact cannot be empirically proven?

I find this comment absolutely fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the theory you favor is that an intelligent agent (which by necessity would be a non-human agent) somehow input the "information" required for subsequent life to arise. You convict science for not being able to duplicate experimentally the process of life arising from nonliving matter by natural processes. But can you pass your own litmus test? That is, can you experimentally duplicate the event or process of a non-human intelligent agent inputting information into nonliving matter such that life subsequently arises?

I'm not the one suggesting that my theory is a fact and preventing an honest discourse of opposing views in the classroom. I'm also not the one claiming that all scientific assertions must rest exclusively upon materialistic evidence. The Darwinists problem isn't with me it is with their own contradictory positions. If you are willing to allow an honest presentatio of all of the evidence for and against competing origin of life theories then the science classroom is a fine place to have this debate. Otherwise, since you cannot proove your theory of evolutiuon with emperical evidence maybe it should be left to the philosophy or religion classes.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

fittest meme said: Entropy is defined as the amount of energy not available to do work in a closed system. Work is then defined as effort or activity directed toward the accomplishment of something. Maybe Eric Finn and others have a hard time with information because it requires recognizing the ubiquitous reality of the metaphysical concept of "purpose" in all of life.

fittest meme said:

nasty.brutish.tall said:

fittest meme said: Does it concern you that a theory you present as fact cannot be empirically proven?

I find this comment absolutely fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume the theory you favor is that an intelligent agent (which by necessity would be a non-human agent) somehow input the "information" required for subsequent life to arise. You convict science for not being able to duplicate experimentally the process of life arising from nonliving matter by natural processes. But can you pass your own litmus test? That is, can you experimentally duplicate the event or process of a non-human intelligent agent inputting information into nonliving matter such that life subsequently arises?

I'm not the one suggesting that my theory is a fact and preventing an honest discourse of opposing views in the classroom.

I'm also not the one claiming that all scientific assertions must rest exclusively upon materialistic evidence. The Darwinists problem isn't with me it is with their own contradictory positions. If you are willing to allow an honest presentatio of all of the evidence for and against competing origin of life theories then the science classroom is a fine place to have this debate.

Otherwise, since you cannot proove your theory of evolutiuon with emperical evidence maybe it should be left to the philosophy or religion classes.

Can someone please post the answers to the questions eventually ? I've never had to get to grips with entropy. I've learned a lot from the informed postings here.

Eric Finn said: The purpose of a rock is to fall down.

steveastrouk said: Can someone please post the answers to the questions eventually ? I've never had to get to grips with entropy. I've learned a lot from the informed postings here.

fittest meme said: I'm not the one suggesting that my theory is a fact and preventing an honest discourse of opposing views in the classroom. I'm also not the one claiming that all scientific assertions must rest exclusively upon materialistic evidence. The Darwinists problem isn't with me it is with their own contradictory positions.

If you are willing to allow an honest presentatio of all of the evidence for and against competing origin of life theories then the science classroom is a fine place to have this debate.

Otherwise, since you cannot proove your theory of evolutiuon with emperical evidence maybe it should be left to the philosophy or religion classes.

harold said: You [fittest meme] don't understand thermodynamics, you don't understand what Granville Sewell said about thermodynamics (ironic given that you are part of his target audience), ...

fittest meme said: Entropy is defined as the amount of energy not available to do work in a closed system. Work is then defined as effort or activity directed toward the accomplishment of something.

fittest meme said: The fact however, that there was useable energy available in the first place, demonstrates that our universe like the weed in Joe's yard, is not a closed system. Something transcends the empirically measurable material world. Whatever that is, it is the source of material, energy and purposeful information. Those of us proposing a theory of ID recognize the reality of this transcendence and are pursuing a better understanding of its nature through all sources of knowledge and evidence.

Actually Felsenstein doesn't realize that morphogenesis itself contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here, we see cells synergistically interact with each other in a fully deterministic way to produce a predetermined morphological goal. This is not what you expect from a biochemical environment that involves countless exchanges of information flows of energy. I think you can safely use the 2nd law to refute the claim that morphogenesis is the sum of spontaneous natural processes because we should see dissipation and disorder as a result of the expenditure of useable energy, and yet we see a highly organized synthesis instead. This indicates the necessary presence of an external factor or input.

Atheistoclast said: Actually Felsenstein doesn't realize that morphogenesis itself contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here, we see cells synergistically interact with each other in a fully deterministic way to produce a predetermined morphological goal. This is not what you expect from a biochemical environment that involves countless exchanges of information flows of energy. I think you can safely use the 2nd law to refute the claim that morphogenesis is the sum of spontaneous natural processes because we should see dissipation and disorder as a result of the expenditure of useable energy, and yet we see a highly organized synthesis instead. This indicates the necessary presence of an external factor or input.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

fittest meme said: I'm not the one suggesting that my theory is a fact and preventing an honest discourse of opposing views in the classroom. I'm also not the one claiming that all scientific assertions must rest exclusively upon materialistic evidence. The Darwinists problem isn't with me it is with their own contradictory positions. If you are willing to allow an honest presentatio of all of the evidence for and against competing origin of life theories then the science classroom is a fine place to have this debate. Otherwise, since you cannot proove your theory of evolutiuon with emperical evidence maybe it should be left to the philosophy or religion classes.

Atheistoclast said:

rossum said: Take some salt. Dissolve it in water. What is the entropy of the salt? Leave the dissolved salt in a saucer in the sun. Wait for the water to evaporate. What is the entropy of the salt, now crystallised? Is it greater or less than the entropy of the dissolved salt? Was this a "spontaneous natural process"? Was the entropy of the salt decreased?

It depends entirely on the amount of energy available. But the quantity of useable energy in the universe is declining - that is a basic tenet of the 2nd law. So, it is true that the process of evaporation is itself inevitably going to become impossible as it is energy-dependent. Look at radioactive isotopes: they are in an inexorable state of decay. Living organisms are in a similar situation. With every generation, their genomes become increasingly deteriorated.

Mike Elzinga said: Nothing contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics; do you understand? NOTHING!

Add rockets to the endless phenomena which Theistocrat doesn't understand.

Glen Davidson

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nothing contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics; do you understand? NOTHING!

Of course it can. An external factor can obviate the 2nd law of thermodynamics just as a rocket can obviate the law of gravity.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nothing contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics; do you understand? NOTHING!

Of course it can. An external factor can obviate the 2nd law of thermodynamics just as a rocket can obviate the law of gravity. Natural process cannot contradict the 2nd law. Supernatural things don't have that problem. It therefore follows that plant growth is supernatural in that it requires something extraneous with which to curtail the increase in entropy.

Thermodynamics problems are not solved by hand waving. Thermodynamics may be only statistically true but it is nevertheless a very exact science. The Second Law in particular is a very precise statement about the way things behave. Thermodynamics is all about things that you can measure and put numbers to - metaphysics does not enter into it. Trying to make an argument based on a mixture of half-understood scientific facts and fallacies is bound to lead to confusion.

All this talk of entropy and open and closed systems is all pointless without a very clear and precise definition of these terms. Dragging 'information' into it without a clear definition further muddies the waters. Again, an argument based on a mixture of half-understood technical terms is bound to lead to confusion.

An isolated system (which is the preferred term in this context) is an ideal, it never really exists. If we consider a system (which could be anything) and its surroundings (which are everything except the system) then the system is 'isolated' if the boundary between the system and its surroundings is rigid (allows no mechanical work to be transferred), thermally isolating, electrically insulating, and impervious to electric, magnetic, and gravitational, fields. An open system is one where the boundary does not have these properties.

Thus the Universe fails the test of an isolated system because it is impossible to draw an imaginary boundary between it and its surroundings before we even consider what properties we could ascribe to such a boundary. This effectively prevents us doing thermodynamic calculations on the Universe as if it were an isolated system. In fact the expansion of the Universe causes the total entropy of the Universe to increase more slowly than would otherwise be the case. This is an example of how one can be led astray by sloppy thinking.

"...we can’t expect to put flour, sugar, butter, and chocolate chips in an oven and hope to get cookies."

Analogies are a very bad idea when it comes to the Second Law. The Second Law is universal, therefore any example of something that happens is an example of the Second Law in action. Conversely, an example of something that cannot happen, is not necessarily an example of something being prevented by the Second Law. I cannot jump up to the Moon because of gravity and nullification of the Second Law would not make it possible.

Once you bring 'intent' into the picture you are playing an entirely new game. The Theory of Evolution describes a process without 'intent'. The outcome is essentially unpredictable. Trying to add outside influences to the operation of thermodynamics is to undermine the laws that have been discovered.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nothing contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics; do you understand? NOTHING!

Of course it can. An external factor can obviate the 2nd law of thermodynamics just as a rocket can obviate the law of gravity. Natural process cannot contradict the 2nd law. Supernatural things don't have that problem. It therefore follows that plant growth is supernatural in that it requires something extraneous with which to curtail the increase in entropy.

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nothing contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics; do you understand? NOTHING!

Of course it can. An external factor can obviate the 2nd law of thermodynamics just as a rocket can obviate the law of gravity.

Sure, as longs as you're using "obviate" to mean "act in accordance with". Or as long as you don't understand or care what the second law of thermodynamics and the law of gravity actually state.

phhht said: This is yet another example of Theistoclast's compulsion to see gods at work everywhere. You're deluded, Theistoclast. You have a religious delusion which warps your very perception of reality. It keeps you from understanding entropy, rockets, evolution, indeed every aspect of reality. There are no supernatural things. You know this very well, but at the same time, you just cannot accept the truth. You know that you are deluded, but it just doesn't help, does it?

Alan(UK) said: Even with an understanding of matter on the atomic level, 'Entropy' remained a quantity that could be clearly calculated from actual measurements but difficult to describe. Unfortunately this led to it acquiring mystical connotations on one hand and attempted simplification in terms of shuffled cards and untidy rooms on the other. As the analogies were easy to understand, they took on a life of their own. Even Steven Hawking, Jim Al-Khalili, and Professor Brian Cox have been known to resort to them. All is made clear by Dr. Frank L. Lambert: http://entropysite.oxy.edu/

A real understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything requires the realization that we live in a 'Chaotic' system (in the modern sense, not the 'disorder' idea) that is driven by immense sources of energy surrounded by vast regions of emptiness at almost zero temperature which keep us in a state that is dynamically stable but far from equilibrium.

fittest meme said: Entropy is defined as the amount of energy not available to do work in a closed system.

fittest meme said: I'm not the one suggesting that my theory is a fact and preventing an honest discourse of opposing views in the classroom. I'm also not the one claiming that all scientific assertions must rest exclusively upon materialistic evidence. The Darwinists problem isn't with me it is with their own contradictory positions. If you are willing to allow an honest presentatio of all of the evidence for and against competing origin of life theories then the science classroom is a fine place to have this debate. Otherwise, since you cannot proove your theory of evolutiuon with emperical evidence maybe it should be left to the philosophy or religion classes.

Atheistoclast said: I would maintain that "dark energy" represents a problem for the 2nd law, in that it is pulling the universe further apart but is itself not part of the available energy within it. Without dark energy (and dark matter), the universe should be slowing down by its own gravity. But it is accelerating.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nothing contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics; do you understand? NOTHING!

Of course it can. An external factor can obviate the 2nd law of thermodynamics just as a rocket can obviate the law of gravity. Natural process cannot contradict the 2nd law. Supernatural things don't have that problem. It therefore follows that plant growth is supernatural in that it requires something extraneous with which to curtail the increase in entropy.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

DS said: You need a god for every embryo, every development, every new gene, every new allele, every new species, every new everything. There you have it, the perfect reason to have to believe in god., Just ignore everything that has been learned about the natural world for the last five hundred years. Think how much better of we were when we blamed gods for everything from diseases to lightning to earthquakes to volcanoes. Man, those were the days.

Atheistoclast said: I think you can safely use the 2nd law to refute the claim that morphogenesis is the sum of spontaneous natural processes because we should see dissipation and disorder as a result of the expenditure of useable energy, and yet we see a highly organized synthesis instead. This indicates the necessary presence of an external factor or input.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Atheistoclast said: I would maintain that "dark energy" represents a problem for the 2nd law, in that it is pulling the universe further apart but is itself not part of the available energy within it. Without dark energy (and dark matter), the universe should be slowing down by its own gravity. But it is accelerating.

This is extraordinary non-factual. Since, as has been mentioned here, the universe is average zero energy, expansion doesn't contribute energy.* You could, and should, as well question the expansion of volume _first_. But you can't, since it is such a well established observation. Besides, _everyone_ knows that the universe was first inflationary expanding, then radiation dominated, then matter dominated, but that the generic state of expansion is freewheeling. I.e. no slowing down, and it is the later era of vacuum energy (dark energy) domination that speeds up expansion. ------------- * As attested by the background being flat space. But as found out 2003 the energy of our type of universe is exactly zero energy as a system. Which by the way means universes can be created by tunneling from existing universes or from absence of spacetime (so called "nothing" in string theory) but they _can not_ be created by a third party agent. No creators allowed.

I refuse to sit Mike Elzinga's rigged "test" as if I were the one on trial in this thread. He refuses to accept that morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns. I will have nothing to do with this scientific ignoramus.

Yea you need something, but I ain't gonna tell you what it is, ja just needs it that's all. And I ain't gonna take no stinkin test. I knows what I's talking about, even if I can't prove it. I'm sure everyone will be fooled by this bullshit. I'm gonna go stare into the mirror now.

Atheistoclast said: I refuse to sit Mike Elzinga's rigged "test" as if I were the one on trial in this thread. He refuses to accept that morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns. I will have nothing to do with this scientific ignoramus.

Atheistoclast said: ...morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns.

Atheistoclast said: I refuse to sit Mike Elzinga's rigged "test" as if I were the one on trial in this thread. He refuses to accept that morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns. I will have nothing to do with this scientific ignoramus.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Atheistoclast said: I refuse to sit Mike Elzinga's rigged "test" as if I were the one on trial in this thread. He refuses to accept that morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns. I will have nothing to do with this scientific ignoramus.

Creationists, let me try to make this simple. Entropy is NOT disorder. Information is NOT the opposite of disorder. If you are trying to calculate the entropy by what you imagine is the apparent "disorder" of a system, then YOU ARE WRONG!

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: I refuse to sit Mike Elzinga's rigged "test" as if I were the one on trial in this thread. He refuses to accept that morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns. I will have nothing to do with this scientific ignoramus.

Rigged, eh? Physics students can do this.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: I refuse to sit Mike Elzinga's rigged "test" as if I were the one on trial in this thread. He refuses to accept that morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns. I will have nothing to do with this scientific ignoramus.

Rigged, eh? Physics students can do this.

Of course the test is rigged, Mike. It discriminates against people who don't understand the Boltzmann interpretation of entropy and the relationship between internal energy, entropy, and temperature ... and against people who are too lazy to hunt down the answer after being told told it's already been posted.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: Which by the way means universes can be created by tunneling from existing universes or from absence of spacetime (so called "nothing" in string theory)...

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: ...but they _can not_ be created by a third party agent. No creators allowed.

Mike Elzinga said: [ ten minute physics lesson ]

fittest meme said: If you are willing to allow an honest presentatio of all of the evidence for and against competing origin of life theories then the science classroom is a fine place to have this debate.

eric said: However, if Joe will allow it, I would happily review and listen to your honest presentation for ID here, in this forum. Present it, FM. We're all ears. Lay out the best you've got. But, just to be clear, I want to hear evidence for ID. Claims that "evolution can't explain X" won't cut it since, like Newton and the orbit of Mercury, there is always the possibility of some alternate theory being true. So 'not-evolution' is not evidence of ID. *** You've also talked a lot about information. As a second request, I'd like to know whether your definition of information makes it a conserved quantity or not. If it's conserved, it can't increase...but neither can it decrease, and creationism's "the universe is degenerating" idea fails. OTOH, if it's not conserved, there is no reason it can't increase. I see much fail in your future either way.

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: [ ten minute physics lesson ]

Dang! I knew I didn't know what I didn't know. Now I at least know that I know some of what I don't know. :-) That's at least one positive development. You said you had a full bookshelf. Do you have a recommendation? It's been 30 years, but it sounds like I'd just need to start over from scratch at this point. Extrapolating your 16-atom system to a macroscopic system is... um... well... appears to be straight forward, but is making a hash of this one's "intuitive" understanding of "temperature". One would have expected the "temperature" of a system to continue to increase with the continued addition of energy. The suggestion that it instead goes through an asymptotic discontinuity suggests that this one's intuition is bollixed. I'll have more questions for the professor as soon as I try to digest this a bit more, if you (and the moderator) don't mind. Do you see this, Atheistoclast? This is what it looks like when someone knows what they're talking about. Not a bunch of confusing hand waving that not only contradicts reality, but is self contradictory as well.

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: [ ten minute physics lesson ]

Dang! I knew I didn't know what I didn't know. Now I at least know that I know some of what I don't know. :-) That's at least one positive development.

Extrapolating your 16-atom system to a macroscopic system is… um… well… appears to be straight forward, but is making a hash of this one’s “intuitive” understanding of “temperature”. One would have expected the “temperature” of a system to continue to increase with the continued addition of energy. The suggestion that it instead goes through an asymptotic discontinuity suggests that this one’s intuition is bollixed.

I’ll have more questions for the professor as soon as I try to digest this a bit more, if you (and the moderator) don’t mind.

Thanks Mike

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nothing contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics; do you understand? NOTHING!

Of course it can. An external factor can obviate the 2nd law of thermodynamics just as a rocket can obviate the law of gravity. Natural process cannot contradict the 2nd law. Supernatural things don't have that problem. It therefore follows that plant growth is supernatural in that it requires something extraneous with which to curtail the increase in entropy.

Now you have really stepped in it. Did it ever occur to you that we can easily measure the forces and binding energies in matter? Did you notice that chemical binding energies are on the order of 1 eV? Did you notice that the binding energies of solids like metals are on the order of 0.1 eV? Did you notice that life as we know it exists within the energy range of liquid water, which is on the order of 0.01 eV? What kind of “undetectable” energies and forces can move matter around at the energy levels that we can measure and still remain undetectable? The mere fact that living organism DO NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics is very strong evidence that nothing is “coming in from the outside” to push atoms and molecules around. Just how stupid do you think chemists and physicists are anyway? You still don’t even know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, do you. You still can’t demonstrate your understanding by taking this quiz.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

How pathetic you are. You are waiting for the answer so that you can mud-wrestle. It’s what you ID/creationists do. You “stay in the game” and ride on the backs of real scientists. But you can’t even pass an elementary quiz on any scientific concept. And you think you are special. I’m going to give the answers (again). And we are going to watch what you do with them.

Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

SWT said:

eric said: However, if Joe will allow it, I would happily review and listen to your honest presentation for ID here, in this forum. Present it, FM. We're all ears. Lay out the best you've got.

This is not, of course, the first request for either a positive argument for ID (complete with ways that we might objectively decide if a particular artifact or feature is designed or not) or an unambiguous definition of "information" and discussion of its "conservation". Even if Joe Felsenstein doesn't want it in this thread, the BW is always available, so bring it on!

eric said:

fittest meme said: If you are willing to allow an honest presentatio of all of the evidence for and against competing origin of life theories then the science classroom is a fine place to have this debate.

As another poster said, the place to have such debates is in the literature, not the classroom. However, if Joe will allow it, I would happily review and listen to your honest presentation for ID here, in this forum. Present it, FM. We're all ears. Lay out the best you've got. But, just to be clear, I want to hear evidence for ID. Claims that "evolution can't explain X" won't cut it since, like Newton and the orbit of Mercury, there is always the possibility of some alternate theory being true. So 'not-evolution' is not evidence of ID.

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

IBelieveInGod said: And there goes big bad Mike taunting again, Mike go read what the definition of taunting is. If you are going to taunt, then stop accuse others of doing it, because is only makes you look bad.

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: And there goes big bad Mike taunting again, Mike go read what the definition of taunting is. If you are going to taunt, then stop accuse others of doing it, because is only makes you look bad.

Atheistoclast is an insane, babbling bully. Mike is standing up to him and destroying Atheistoclast's inane claims and preposterous lies. Are you saying that it is wrong of Mike to stand up and take a bully? That Atheistoclast and any other asshole for Jesus is free to inflict abuse on anyone simply because they use Jesus as an excuse to be a bully?

co said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

IBIG, can you explain how *any* symmetry-breaking which we observe today (homochirality, phases of matter separating, spots on a leopard, stars forming, bent water molecules, the existence of _particles_ of any stripe) is not prevented by the 2nd law? Once you understand any of those, you will see why your question to Mike was a massively ignorant one.

TomS said:

co said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

IBIG, can you explain how *any* symmetry-breaking which we observe today (homochirality, phases of matter separating, spots on a leopard, stars forming, bent water molecules, the existence of _particles_ of any stripe) is not prevented by the 2nd law? Once you understand any of those, you will see why your question to Mike was a massively ignorant one.

While your point is well taken, I would suggest that we ask how "intelligent design" explains symmetry-breaking. (Or how it explains anything.) Other than something like this: "Intelligent design can explain anything." (So it does as good a job with symmetry-breaking as it does with symmetry-retention; Does as good a job with humans are most similar to chimps and other apes as it does with humans are less similar to other primates than they are to birds or humans are no more similar to any living thing than they are to any other; Does as good a job with the Earth is round as with the Earth is flat as with the Earth is shaped like a pretzel.) I'm concerned that your question would give an opportunity to an evolution-denier to scientific-sounding talk which can make it look like the evolution-deniers just have a different understanding of some deep scientific questions. Let's rather make it clear that they have nothing to offer.

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups?

co said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

IBIG, can you explain how *any* symmetry-breaking which we observe today (homochirality, phases of matter separating, spots on a leopard, stars forming, bent water molecules, the existence of _particles_ of any stripe) is not prevented by the 2nd law? Once you understand any of those, you will see why your question to Mike was a massively ignorant one.

Mike Elzinga said: But one doesn’t have to dig very deeply into the writings of ALL the major writers in the ID/creationist movement to find solid evidence of the fact that these writers are saturated with Henry Morris’s original bogus conflict between evolution and the second law.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: But one doesn’t have to dig very deeply into the writings of ALL the major writers in the ID/creationist movement to find solid evidence of the fact that these writers are saturated with Henry Morris’s original bogus conflict between evolution and the second law.

Isn't it curious that Morris was also the person who came up with the argument that the order of the fossil record was due to hydrodynamic sorting in the Flood.

DS said:

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: But one doesn’t have to dig very deeply into the writings of ALL the major writers in the ID/creationist movement to find solid evidence of the fact that these writers are saturated with Henry Morris’s original bogus conflict between evolution and the second law.

Isn't it curious that Morris was also the person who came up with the argument that the order of the fossil record was due to hydrodynamic sorting in the Flood.

Doesn't hydrodynamic sorting violate the second law of thermodynamics? I mean how could random processes create exactly the same order reconstructed by the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between organisms? Where did the information come from? Just askin.

Atheistoclast said: Of course it can. An external factor can obviate the 2nd law of thermodynamics just as a rocket can obviate the law of gravity. .... Obviate means avoid. You avoid the law of gravity by providing a force that can resist its downward force.

IBelieveInAskingOtherPeoplesQuestionsAndPretendingIThoughtOfThem said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

apokryltaros said:

DS said:

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: But one doesn’t have to dig very deeply into the writings of ALL the major writers in the ID/creationist movement to find solid evidence of the fact that these writers are saturated with Henry Morris’s original bogus conflict between evolution and the second law.

Isn't it curious that Morris was also the person who came up with the argument that the order of the fossil record was due to hydrodynamic sorting in the Flood.

Doesn't hydrodynamic sorting violate the second law of thermodynamics? I mean how could random processes create exactly the same order reconstructed by the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between organisms? Where did the information come from? Just askin.

Nothing is impossible if you invoke God to violate those pesky immutable laws of nature for you. I mean, besides straining credibility.

In case anybody is interested (I can assure you it is not interesting), here is today’s 2nd law argument by none other than Jason Lisle over on AiG.

Mike Elzinga said: In case anybody is interested (I can assure you it is not interesting), here is today’s 2nd law argument by none other than Jason Lisle over on AiG.

(From Lisle) As an astronomer, I am sometimes asked what effects the Curse had upon the cosmos beyond earth. How did Adam’s fall into sin affect stars, galaxies, and planets, for example? This question seemed straightforward, but as I looked closer, I found that it was more complicated than it first appeared.

apokryltaros said: Then how come you refuse to show any of us the data and experimentation that demonstrate that there is "an organizing force impos(ing) structural patterns" on embryos?

It is hypocritical of you to falsely accuse Mike Elzinga of being a "scientific ignoramus" when you, in turn, demand that we swallow your bullshit without question or hesitation.

Mike Elzinga said: In case anybody is interested (I can assure you it is not interesting), here is today’s 2nd law argument by none other than Jason Lisle over on AiG.

Joe claims that, because of the second law of thermodynamics, genomes can only degrade over time. Unfortunately, he completely ignores all of the evidence that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. Therefore, according to Joe, humans devolved from apes! And in order to explain this most inexplicable situation, the hand of god herself must personally be involved in every development of every embryo in every organism. Of course Joe has absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. All he has is his insatiable need to have some excuse to believe in a god.

Unfortunately for Joe, our understanding of developmental biology is important for more than the understanding of evolution. It is also critical for human medicine. But then again, if god is responsible for all of the congenital deformities, maybe we should just give up on medicine and spend our time praying to her instead. As I recall, that didn't work out so well last time it was tried. I wonder why?

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics did not prevent the homochirality of sugars and amino acids from occurring in the "prebiotic soups" then because it does not prevent them from occurring now. The onus is on you and other science-deniers to explain why the 2nd Law couldn't have let life occur without the direct, magical intervention of God 10,000 years ago. But you are not interested in doing that, IBelieve, you are too busy trying to play your inane Gotcha Games For Jesus in the vain hope of humiliating and ridiculing us.

So when are you getting to the part when you explain how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics couldn’t have let life occur without the direct, magical intervention of God 10,000 years ago, therefore, scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS THE LORD, hmm?

apokryltaros said: So when are you getting to the part when you explain how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics couldn’t have let life occur without the direct, magical intervention of God 10,000 years ago, therefore, scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS THE LORD, hmm?

phhht said: I very much appreciate hearing from you guys who know what you're talking about.

IBelieveInGod said:

apokryltaros said: So when are you getting to the part when you explain how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics couldn’t have let life occur without the direct, magical intervention of God 10,000 years ago, therefore, scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS THE LORD, hmm?

According to Joe that won't be tolerated in this thread, so why do you just answer my questions? Is it your contention that homochirality does not pose a problem for Abiogenesis? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the formation of both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers require the exact same amount of energy, therefore both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers would be produced in virtually equal amounts correct?

Scott F said:

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: ...but they _can not_ be created by a third party agent. No creators allowed.

Huh? Can you expand on that one please? Are you saying that we (or someone) could not initiate a new universe from ours? (Which would seem to contradict the first part of your sentence, so I'm sure I'm not understanding correctly.) Thanks.

eric said: I see much fail in your future either way.

IBelieveInGod said: Really? So, is it your contention that homochirality does not pose a problem for Abiogenesis? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the formation of both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers require the exact same amount of energy, both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers would be produced in virtually equal amounts correct?

Atheistoclast said:

apokryltaros said: Then how come you refuse to show any of us the data and experimentation that demonstrate that there is "an organizing force impos(ing) structural patterns" on embryos?

I have repeatedly done so on this forum. I suggest you read this for a start: Self-organizing optic-cup morphogenesis in three-dimensional culture http://www.sjos.org/stem_retinol.pdf

It is hypocritical of you to falsely accuse Mike Elzinga of being a "scientific ignoramus" when you, in turn, demand that we swallow your bullshit without question or hesitation.

Elzinga ignores the thermodynamical behavior of an accelerated expanding universe driven by dark energy. Has he read this paper on the subject? Generalised second law of thermodynamics for interacting dark energy in the DGP brane world http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.2210v1.pdf I don't think so.

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups? Explain why the 2nd law of thermodynamics wouldn't have prevented this.

stevaroni said:

Mike Elzinga said: In case anybody is interested (I can assure you it is not interesting), here is today’s 2nd law argument by none other than Jason Lisle over on AiG.

Truly fascinating.

(From Lisle) As an astronomer, I am sometimes asked what effects the Curse had upon the cosmos beyond earth. How did Adam’s fall into sin affect stars, galaxies, and planets, for example? This question seemed straightforward, but as I looked closer, I found that it was more complicated than it first appeared.

Entire solar systems of inoffensive little creatures, peacefully living their inoffensive little lives in quiet backwaters all over the universe got to have their entire worlds destroyed simply because one man and one women, both with the all the moral and ethical development of an 5 year old child, went off in a totally foreseeable event and ate a piece of fruit. Well, that's a kind and loving God at work.

Atheistoclast said: Elzinga ignores the thermodynamical behavior of an accelerated expanding universe driven by dark energy. Has he read this paper on the subject? Generalised second law of thermodynamics for interacting dark energy in the DGP brane world http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.2210v1.pdf

IBelieveInGod said: Really? So, is it your contention that homochirality does not pose a problem for Abiogenesis? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the formation of both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers require the exact same amount of energy, both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers would be produced in virtually equal amounts correct?

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said:

apokryltaros said: So when are you getting to the part when you explain how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics couldn’t have let life occur without the direct, magical intervention of God 10,000 years ago, therefore, scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS THE LORD, hmm?

According to Joe that won't be tolerated in this thread, so why do you just answer my questions? Is it your contention that homochirality does not pose a problem for Abiogenesis? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the formation of both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers require the exact same amount of energy, therefore both left-handed and right-handed enantiomers would be produced in virtually equal amounts correct?

You are not interested in what I have to say. You have never been interested in what anyone has to say, unless they mindlessly agree with your own inane bigotries. The only reason why you ask your maliciously stupid questions is so you can go "WRONG, BECAUSE JESUS IS THE LORD!!!" So, please explain why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can not allow life to evolve without the direct magical intervention of God 10,000 years ago.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Atheistoclast said: Elzinga ignores the thermodynamical behavior of an accelerated expanding universe driven by dark energy. Has he read this paper on the subject? Generalised second law of thermodynamics for interacting dark energy in the DGP brane world http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1006/1006.2210v1.pdf

That is a "generalized second law of thermodynamics", which by definition isn't any of the accepted classical laws. Anything can be posted on arxiv, it isn't peer reviewed. (However preprints from later peer reviewed papers can be found there.) I have commented on the thermodynamical behavior of a standard cosmology universe, with peer reviewed references, already. The energy is zero due to dark energy being diluted to a Minkowski type universe at the cosmological horizon (read the paper), a universe is by definition thermodynamically closed, and its expansion makes the maximum allowed entropy density grow much faster than the observed entropy which explains why the universe sees spontaneously increased structure formation over time (go to Stenger's book for references). That is all there is to it.

Here is an article over chirality and how interactions with diastereomers gives energy differences between enantiomers: http://www.utdallas.edu/%7Ebiewerm/5-stereoisomers.pdf. That is what I meant with "not the simplistic" way.

Here is an article on PVED (parity violating energy differences). The Standard Model of particle physics have parity violations (due to another spontaneous symmetry breaking) and it shows up in chemistry. However, this energy difference is believed to be swamped by thermal effects in most or all cases.

Mike Elzinga said: It is really pointless to attempt to have any kind of intelligent exchange with Bozorgmehr. You may not have been following his “exploits” on this site.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:

Mike Elzinga said: It is really pointless to attempt to have any kind of intelligent exchange with Bozorgmehr. You may not have been following his “exploits” on this site.

Sorry, I missed your post, I have been serial posting due to breaks. No, I didn't know it was Bozorgmehr, I haven't seen the exploits, but the general behavior was pretty much clear anyway. As always, we have to play to the gallery since the choir is incompetent, I take it?

IBelieveInGod said: Just answer the questions I posed. Or can you?

rossum said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike can you explain how homochirality arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups?

See Emergence of a Single Solid Chiral State from a Nearly Racemic Amino Acid Derivative for just one way. rossum

Thanks for the physics lesson, Mike. I learned a lot.

You've also made it even clearer that Bozo the Theistoclown and IBeleiveInBeingADisruptiveAsshole are ineducable.

Joe Felsenstein said:

eric said: However, if Joe will allow it, I would happily review and listen to your honest presentation for ID here, in this forum. Present it, FM. We're all ears. Lay out the best you've got.

Given the absence of any more recent posts at PT, and given the extraordinary (i.e. nonexistent) nature of any positive evidence for ID, I'm going to be relatively tolerant of "fittest meme" presenting such evidence. But let's establish some ground rules: 1. Evidence for the existence of Specified Complexity in life is not positive evidence for ID. Aside from the oft-discussed objection that SC is ill-defined, it has been shown that Dembski's theorems do not rule out the creation (or transfer into life forms) of SC by natural selection. In addition to which, Dembski's argument is basically negative -- we see something natural selection can't do (and it can do it, anyway). 2. Likewise any use of Michael Behe's arguments about Irreducible Complexity. That's a negative argument: Behe argues that he sees something natural selection can't do. 3. Arguments about the fine-tuning of the Universe are out -- they allow natural selection to work after that, anyway. 4. And of course arguments for the existence of a Deity are beside the point as well (and there are lots of other places on the internet to make those arguments). 5. Arguments that the fossil record doesn't fit evolutionary mechanisms are negative, and so out. 6. Arguments that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics are out (and also totally wrong), of course. I'll probably make up more restrictions as we go along. But I am really curious what might constitute a positive argument for ID, so I'll bite.

fnxtr said: Thanks for the physics lesson, Mike. I learned a lot. You've also made it even clearer that Bozo the Theistoclown and IBeleiveInBeingADisruptiveAsshole are ineducable.

fittest meme said: By the way, I have kids, a wife, a business, and pass-times other than this board. I've got better things to do than to wait for and respond to you people's virtually constant posting.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Atheistoclast said: I refuse to sit Mike Elzinga's rigged "test" as if I were the one on trial in this thread. He refuses to accept that morphogenesis is not a self-contained natural order but one which requires an organizing force that imposes structural patterns on otherwise random or indeterminate patterns. I will have nothing to do with this scientific ignoramus.

Rigged, eh? Physics students can do this.

Of course the test is rigged, Mike. It discriminates against people who don't understand the Boltzmann interpretation of entropy and the relationship between internal energy, entropy, and temperature ... and against people who are too lazy to hunt down the answer after being told told it's already been posted.

fittest meme said: The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities. Thus, the emperical observation that life exists . . . that you are . . . is evidence of Intelligent Design.

fittest meme said: O.K. Joe you're the boss of this classroom. Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive), awareness of self (I am distinct from my environment), or information (I can make copies of myself). The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities. Thus, the emperical observation that life exists . . . that you are . . . is evidence of Intelligent Design. It's so plain that we don't even need Mike to simplify it with his equations. By the way, I have kids, a wife, a business, and pass-times other than this board. I've got better things to do than to wait for and respond to you people's virtually constant posting.

Mike Elzinga said: I hope my decades of weary familiarity with ID/creationist shenanigans doesn’t make me appear too grumpy when I call them on their games. Nothing ever changes with them; and being polite to them has never ever worked.

Steve P. said: Problem is SWT, you (pl) dance around the obvious. Even Lambert knows that life violates the SLOT. He is just polite in phrasing it as an 'obstruction', albeit an extreeeeeeemely loooooooooong obstruction.

And this is what Sewell is talking about.

Evolution could not get off the ground based on the notion of small step change.

The fact that weeds grow has nothing to do with neo-darwinian evolution. Weeds grow because of what is contained in the seed of that weed.

Evolution does not account for the seed. Rather, it tries to account for the myriad types of seeds available.

But it is the 'idea' of the seed that violates the SLOT, not the quantity of types of seeds available.

Different animals.

Steve P. said: And this is what Sewell is talking about. Evolution could not get off the ground based on the notion of small step change. The fact that weeds grow has nothing to do with neo-darwinian evolution. Weeds grow because of what is contained in the seed of that weed. Evolution does not account for the seed. Rather, it tries to account for the myriad types of seeds available. But it is the 'idea' of the seed that violates the SLOT, not the quantity of types of seeds available. Different animals.

harold said: This whole 2LOT strategy is so stupid. When I started out as a science undergraduate, I had to cover basic thermodynamics. It was part of General Chemistry. Obviously, the level of expertise imparted is below that of the physicists and engineers posting here who dealt with it in more advanced courses, but thermodynamics is a basic part of getting a bachelor of science degree where I studied. Any major. General Chemistry was consistent with General Physics (also required). Organic Chemistry was consistent with Gen Chem. Biochemistry was consistent with organic and general chemistry. Molecular biology and genetics are consistent with biochemistry. They're all part of cell biology. It's all interconnected. If Sewell and the trolls were right about thermodynamics, that would mean that thermodynamics was wrong. You can't contradict away observed reality by claiming that it isn't consistent with thermodynamics. If you think it isn't, either thermodynamics is wrong, or your understanding of it is wrong. Guess what? It's your understanding of it that's wrong.

So, life violates the SLOT and rockets violate the law of gravity. So of course Steve violates the laws of common sense. Seems appropriate somehow.

fittest meme said: Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive), awareness of self (I am distinct from my environment),

or information (I can make copies of myself). The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities.

fittest meme said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

eric said: However, if Joe will allow it, I would happily review and listen to your honest presentation for ID here, in this forum. Present it, FM. We're all ears. Lay out the best you've got.

Given the absence of any more recent posts at PT, and given the extraordinary (i.e. nonexistent) nature of any positive evidence for ID, I'm going to be relatively tolerant of "fittest meme" presenting such evidence. But let's establish some ground rules: ... I'll probably make up more restrictions as we go along. But I am really curious what might constitute a positive argument for ID, so I'll bite.

O.K. Joe you're the boss of this classroom. Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive), awareness of self (I am distinct from my environment), or information (I can make copies of myself). The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities. Thus, the emperical observation that life exists . . . that you are . . . is evidence of Intelligent Design. It's so plain that we don't even need Mike to simplify it with his equations. By the way, I have kids, a wife, a business, and pass-times other than this board. I've got better things to do than to wait for and respond to you people's virtually constant posting.

Joe Felsenstein said: "fittest meme" asked to be able to present evidence for ID. I indicated some arguments that would not work. Now all FM has is this vacuous existence-of-life argument. And pleading that FM has other work to do. FM is welcome to go do it.

unkle.hank said: ... and, last but not least, (d) it's a comment thread, not a timed exam - you can answer any question posed in your own time.

Thermodynamics -- "the movement of heat".

Huh.

So, just how is it impossible for heat to do work as it passes through the atmosphere/oceans/us, again? I missed that part.

Life isn't a goal, it's just a side-effect.

Steve P. said: And this is what Sewell is talking about. Evolution could not get off the ground based on the notion of small step change.

The fact that weeds grow has nothing to do with neo-darwinian evolution. Weeds grow because of what is contained in the seed of that weed.

Evolution does not account for the seed. Rather, it tries to account for the myriad types of seeds available.

But it is the 'idea' of the seed that violates the SLOT, not the quantity of types of seeds available. Different animals.

Steve P. said: And this is what Sewell is talking about. Evolution could not get off the ground based on the notion of small step change. The fact that weeds grow has nothing to do with neo-darwinian evolution. Weeds grow because of what is contained in the seed of that weed. Evolution does not account for the seed. Rather, it tries to account for the myriad types of seeds available. But it is the 'idea' of the seed that violates the SLOT, not the quantity of types of seeds available. Different animals.

fittest meme said: O.K. Joe you're the boss of this classroom. Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive), awareness of self (I am distinct from my environment), or information (I can make copies of myself). The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities. Thus, the emperical observation that life exists . . . that you are . . . is evidence of Intelligent Design.

fittest meme said: Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive), awareness of self (I am distinct from my environment), or information (I can make copies of myself). The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities. Thus, the emperical observation that life exists . . . that you are . . . is evidence of Intelligent Design.

Scott F said: Sorry, but your conclusion has nothing to do with the statements that precede it. Even if it did, half of the 4 statements that precede it are obvious and trivial fallacies. Since no sound system of logic can conclude a truth from false premises, we must therefore logically conclude that you have flaming orange hair, a large red nose, and comically large shoes. I see no other possible "logical" conclusion.

Atheistoclast said: a rocket can obviate the law of gravity.

A tour de force like this; refreshments at the ready, by Isaac Asimov

“There’s so much we don’t understand - … - that most likely we don’t yet even possess the vocabulary to ask a well-posed question.

Rolf said:

Atheistoclast said: a rocket can obviate the law of gravity.

Newton must be rotating in his grave!

fittest meme said: By the way, I have kids, a wife, a business, and pass-times other than this board. I've got better things to do than to wait for and respond to you people's virtually constant posting.

fittest meme said: By the way, I have kids, a wife, a business, and pass-times other than this board. I've got better things to do than to wait for and respond to you people's virtually constant posting.

SWT said: So IBIG, fittest meme, and Steve P., et al. don't expect any sympathy because you're so busy. I know I don't give a rodent's rump how busy you are. You chose to come to a room full of scientists and tell us we're all wrong about several fundamental issues, but when we cut through the BS and press you to justify why you think we're wrong and defend what you think is correct, you're too busy? Meh ...

Sorry to be so late to the party, but I’m glad that someone brought this up. As a non-scientist, I tend to respond in a way other than to affirm the 2nd law or explain its compatibility with evolution. The question that interests me is “so what?” If evolution did, in fact, contradict our conceptions of entropy, why would we automatically assume that evolution should move rather than entropy? Since what the creationist is arguing here is that scientific consensus, even longstanding scientific consensus, can be badly mistaken, what is it that exempts chemistry and physics from the same argument used to impugn biology?

fittest meme said: Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive), awareness of self (I am distinct from my environment), or information (I can make copies of myself).

The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities. Thus, the emperical observation that life exists . . . that you are . . . is evidence of Intelligent Design.

By the way, I have kids, a wife, a business, and pass-times other than this board. I've got better things to do than to wait for and respond to you people's virtually constant posting.

When fittest meme gets around to presenting the positive argument for ID, I sure hope he addresses the point made by Elizabeth Liddle (aka Febble). She noted that Dembski, certainly a friend of ID, defined intelligence as "the power and facility to choose between options". Why then is natural selection not, as far as ID is concerned, an "intelligent agent"?

Scott F said: I'm no expert, but I'll take a crack at trying to define "life" within your 3 restrictions. 1. "... without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive) ..." I'll start with a simple, single celled organism. I think everyone agrees that a bacterium is "alive", and therefore an example of "life". A bacterium has no concept of purpose. It has no "wants" or "needs". It simply survives because that's what it does. It's just a bag of chemical processes. So a bacterium passes our first restriction.

2. "... awareness of self (I am distinct from my environment) ..." Again, a bacterium has no "awareness", no knowledge of "self". So a bacterium passes your second restriction.

3. "... or information (I can make copies of myself) ..." Hmm... This is an interesting one. You conflate "information" with both a sense of "self" and the ability to make copies. Again, a bacterium has no knowledge of "self", so "I can make copies of myself" is not a problem. However, there's that term "information" again, which you fail to define. All "life" that we know of contains a genome of some kind. I would, in a general sense, say that a genome is the "information" needed for the bacterium to survive, let alone make copies of it "self". So, I will grant you that "information" of some sort is a prerequisite for "life"

Then, your bald assertion: "The only empirically witnessed sources of these necessary components of life are other living or intelligent entities." Okay, this a bit of gibberish. First, we've seen that at least 2 ("purpose" and "self awareness") of these 3 things are in fact not "necessary components of life". Second, it's not clear what an "empirically witnessed source" is. I'll assume what you mean by that, is that a human in modern times has physically observed something. To paraphrase this sentence, I believe that it says, "The only source of life are other living things, or intelligent entities." Well, the source of a bacterium was the parent bacterium, which is an "other living thing." So, this bald assertion is trivially true. Life does come from life, and the disjunction "or intelligent entities" is not required, and is therefore superfluous. Finally, your conclusion: "Thus, the emperical [sic] observation that life exists ... that you are ... is evidence of Intelligent Design." Sorry, but your conclusion has nothing to do with the statements that precede it. Even if it did, half of the 4 statements that precede it are obvious and trivial fallacies. Since no sound system of logic can conclude a truth from false premises, we must therefore logically conclude that you have flaming orange hair, a large red nose, and comically large shoes. I see no other possible "logical" conclusion.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: 3. The basic mechanism in either case is that random differences can be multiplied in the same way that some core metabolic pathways promotes light carbon (12C) before heavy (13C) by metabolic cycling with small mass dependent differences in enzyme efficiency.

SWT said:

fittest meme said: By the way, I have kids, a wife, a business, and pass-times other than this board. I've got better things to do than to wait for and respond to you people's virtually constant posting.

Perhaps this is off-topic, but comments like that quoted above are irritating. Several of our creationist commentators have made a point of expressing how busy they are with their businesses and families and everything. Well guess what ... those of us who are academics with active research programs have exactly the same concerns. If you're an academic with a few PhD students, you're running a small business in addition to covering your teaching and departmental service responsibilities, dealing with institutional politics, and being a parent (or grandparent in my case), and having a life (I'm quite active in my church and I'm a fairly accomplished musician -- I'm not at a professional level but I'm a serious amateur). And guess what ... often, a professor is the marketing department (proposals to industrial and governmental agencies), and much of the HR department, and an active participant in research activities, and responsible for parts of the accounting and purchasing functions, and a liaison with funding agencies and professional organizations. And guess what ... you're running this business in an extremely competitive environment with a staff that is probably all trainees -- once they're trained, you're supposed to let them go to start up a potentially competing enterprise because they're a product of your work as well. So IBIG, fittest meme, and Steve P., et al. don't expect any sympathy because you're so busy. I know I don't give a rodent's rump how busy you are. You chose to come to a room full of scientists and tell us we're all wrong about several fundamental issues, but when we cut through the BS and press you to justify why you think we're wrong and defend what you think is correct, you're too busy? Meh ...

fittest meme said: I'll admit that this information was unnecessary to present. I thought I was being taunted by Joe and felt a need to indicate that the reason I had not immediately responded to questions was not because I was running away. Simply answering the questions I can with the time I have available would have been a sufficient response. I realize that all of you have conflicts as well. Such a track of debate is not productive I recognize it could be irritating and apologize for bringing it into the conversation.

fittest meme said: If life has only been witnessed to have comes from life; and life necessarily includes coded information; and coded information has only ever been witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent, it is logical to conclude that based on empirical observations the source of life must have been a living intelligent agent.

Thank you, Sir Bedevere. (sigh/yawn)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Survival of the fittest is the driving force behind natural selection.

Then what allows bacterium to have an interest in competing, taking in nutrients for growth, or reproducing? Each of these activities requires an inherent understanding of “self” being separate from environment. Read any description of abiogensis theories and you will see that at some point the idea of “self-awareness”” is magically assumed to be present in some sufficiently complexity chemical structure. Where did this come from?

Please don’t assume that I am projecting the distinctively human cognitive abilities to the simplest life forms.

The presence of these abilities (like creative idea generation and the ability to use and create coded written language) introduces a whole new challenge to Darwinist thinking that we don’t need to address in this argument.

fittest meme said: If life has only been witnessed to have comes from life; and life necessarily includes coded information;

fittest meme said: To suggest otherwise [life coming from non-life] is suggesting that something "magical" has happened.

eric said: According to you creationists, coded information has only ever been witnessed to have been created by human beings.

So you are not following your own logic. If you did, you ought to logically conclude humans. But you don't. Why not? Why leap to God when Ming the Merciless is a much better fit to your "logic?"

You are inferring a creative source of a type that you have never observed - doing exactly what you claim shouldn't be done.

And if you ever deign to give us a definition of information, I daresay I can probobly find an example of a natural process producing that too.

Websters's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1986)says: information - 1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence 2b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computer program) that produces specific effects.

Every time fattest meme chooses to answer a question that was asked after Joe asked his questions, every time he gives an excuse for not answering the questions, every time he explains why he gave an excuse instead of answering the questions, he demonstrates that he cannot answer the questions. Every time someone allows him to get away with it, they only give him more hope that everyone will eventually forget that he hasn't answered the questions. Joe has allowed him to remain here as a courtesy, which he has already abused.

Now you and I know that he cannot answer the questions. You and I know that no creationist anywhere can answer the questions. You and I know that they have not been able to answer the questions in the last one hundred and fifty years. You and I know that they will never be able to answer the questions. Now fattest meme knows it too.

Harold:

Please explain how "survival of the fittest" is different from: "reproductive advantage of one or more phenotypes over other phenotypes, with(in) the given environment."

DS said: Every time fattest meme chooses to answer a question that was asked after Joe asked his questions, every time he gives an excuse for not answering the questions, every time he explains why he gave an excuse instead of answering the questions, he demonstrates that he cannot answer the questions. Every time someone allows him to get away with it, they only give him more hope that everyone will eventually forget that he hasn't answered the questions. Joe has allowed him to remain here as a courtesy, which he has already abused. Now you and I know that he cannot answer the questions. You and I know that no creationist anywhere can answer the questions. You and I know that they have not been able to answer the questions in the last one hundred and fifty years. You and I know that they will never be able to answer the questions. Now fattest meme knows it too.

fittest meme said: Instead of calling it an intelligent agent which may carry meaning for you beyond the words, maybe it would help if I said that: what must be responsible for the origin of life is an agent having the characteristics of intelligence and life.

fittest meme said: Harold: Please explain how "survival of the fittest" is different from: "reproductive advantage of one or more phenotypes over other phenotypes, with(in) the given environment."

SWT said:

fittest meme said: Instead of calling it an intelligent agent which may carry meaning for you beyond the words, maybe it would help if I said that: what must be responsible for the origin of life is an agent having the characteristics of intelligence and life.

1) How are you defining intelligence? 2) Why would an "intelligent agent" have to be alive? 3. Where would an "intelligent agent" come from?

fittest meme said: I did not leap to God in my argument . . I concluded that the agent must be living and that it must demonstrate the same characteristic of humans that allows for the production of information . . . intelligence.

Having described the parameters which logically restrict considered options, continued scientific exploration as to the true nature of this entity can be executed in an efficient manner. The process of elimination . . . it's elementary Watson. I doubt that Ming the Merciless would make the cut.

Websters's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1986)says: information - 1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence 2b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in computer program) that produces specific effects.

Go for it.

eric said:

fittest meme said: To suggest otherwise [life coming from non-life] is suggesting that something "magical" has happened.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "something magical" exactly the mechanism ID proposes? You asked that we allow you guys to give an honest and full presentation of ID. So I look forward to your honest and full presentation on ID's non-magical mechanism for the creation of life.

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said:

fittest meme said: Instead of calling it an intelligent agent which may carry meaning for you beyond the words, maybe it would help if I said that: what must be responsible for the origin of life is an agent having the characteristics of intelligence and life.

1) How are you defining intelligence? 2) Why would an "intelligent agent" have to be alive? 3. Where would an "intelligent agent" come from?

From within life itself. The ancient druids believed in three principles: 1) CALAS (matter) 2) GWYAR (energy) 3 NWYFRE (life force) Scientists can observe the first two (although not when it comes to dark energy whose presence they merely infer). They are clueless about the third because it is entirely non-material and non-energetic. They lack the means to perceive it. And yet the druids of old believed that the life-force, or nwyfre, imbued all creation and was immanent within it, not transcendent. It is, as developmental bioloigist Hans Driesch claimed, "psychoid" and "mind-like". He referred to it as "entelechy" but it is better known as the "vital factor". It is a non-spatial and non-quantitative but produces measurable effects.

fittest meme said: Harold: Please explain how “survival of the fittest” is different from: “reproductive advantage of one or more phenotypes over other phenotypes, with(in) the given environment.”

SWT said: 1) How are you defining intelligence? 2) Why would an "intelligent agent" have to be alive? 3. Where would an "intelligent agent" come from?

Atheistoclast said: From within life itself. The ancient druids believed in three principles: 1) CALAS (matter) 2) GWYAR (energy) 3 NWYFRE (life force)

Mike Elzinga said: So you believe that Stonehenge was a particle accelerator where they found this “life force” particle? Have you learned any science yet?

Kevin B said:

Atheistoclast said: From within life itself. The ancient druids believed in three principles: 1) CALAS (matter) 2) GWYAR (energy) 3 NWYFRE (life force)

Is that the "real" ancient druids (of whom little is recorded) or the genuine original 18th century reinvented ancient druids, which latter group have made up things to suit themselves and of whom too much is recorded, particularly during the National Eisteddfod. "Gwyar" is an obsolete Welsh word, meaning "blood", "Nwyfre" (also obsolete) translated as "firmament" or "sky". "Calas" isn't in my Welsh-English dictionary (even though it claims to be the "Complete" dictionary). However, a quick Google reveals the word to be related to "caled" meaning "hard". So it looks as if there's something of a conflation with "Earth, Sea and Sky" going on. Methinks it's "new druid" rather than "ancient druid..."

fittest meme said: ...coded information...

fittest meme said: If life has only been witnessed to have comes from life; and life necessarily includes coded information; and coded information has only ever been witnessed to have been created by an intelligent agent, it is logical to conclude that based on empirical observations the source of life must have been a living intelligent agent.

Atheistoclast said:

SWT said:

fittest meme said: Instead of calling it an intelligent agent which may carry meaning for you beyond the words, maybe it would help if I said that: what must be responsible for the origin of life is an agent having the characteristics of intelligence and life.

1) How are you defining intelligence? 2) Why would an "intelligent agent" have to be alive? 3. Where would an "intelligent agent" come from?

From within life itself. The ancient druids believed in three principles: 1) CALAS (matter) 2) GWYAR (energy) 3 NWYFRE (life force) Scientists can observe the first two (although not when it comes to dark energy whose presence they merely infer). They are clueless about the third because it is entirely non-material and non-energetic.

They lack the means to perceive it.

And yet the druids of old believed that the life-force, or nwyfre, imbued all creation and was immanent within it, not transcendent.

It is, as developmental bioloigist Hans Driesch claimed, "psychoid" and "mind-like". He referred to it as "entelechy" but it is better known as the "vital factor". It is a non-spatial and non-quantitative but produces measurable effects.

fittest meme said: As was recognized and confirmed by another poster we have only ever witnessed life to have come from other life.

Atheistoclast said:

Kevin B said:

Atheistoclast said: From within life itself. The ancient druids believed in three principles: 1) CALAS (matter) 2) GWYAR (energy) 3 NWYFRE (life force)

Is that the "real" ancient druids (of whom little is recorded) or the genuine original 18th century reinvented ancient druids, which latter group have made up things to suit themselves and of whom too much is recorded, particularly during the National Eisteddfod. "Gwyar" is an obsolete Welsh word, meaning "blood", "Nwyfre" (also obsolete) translated as "firmament" or "sky". "Calas" isn't in my Welsh-English dictionary (even though it claims to be the "Complete" dictionary). However, a quick Google reveals the word to be related to "caled" meaning "hard". So it looks as if there's something of a conflation with "Earth, Sea and Sky" going on. Methinks it's "new druid" rather than "ancient druid..."

These are ancient Welsh terms. Nwyfre is known in modern Welsh as "nerth" which means force. Gwyar means "flow".

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: So you believe that Stonehenge was a particle accelerator where they found this “life force” particle? Have you learned any science yet?

I know that science is based on observation and that observation depends on perception. The druids used their senses in ways which allowed them to perceive realities that cannot be objectively identified in the lab...at least nor with the current approach. Seriously, we are living in the "dark ages" of materialism. The ancients were like geniuses compared to us. They understand life and the world better even if they couldn't observe DNA. Fortunately, dark energy has shown that the material universe is not self-contained.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: 1) How are you defining intelligence? 2) Why would an "intelligent agent" have to be alive? 3. Where would an "intelligent agent" come from?

1. That same Webster's Dictionary provides the following relevant definition: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate ones environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria. In this case "abstractly" is meaning theoretical or in the realm of thought. I consider intelligence to be one that has the ability to reason, create ideas, and communicate those ideas through code or action to manipulate their environment. In other words, the ability to establish material reality from non-material thought.

Atheistoclast said: I know that science is based on observation and that observation depends on perception. The druids used their senses in ways which allowed them to perceive realities that cannot be objectively identified in the lab...at least nor with the current approach.

Mike Elzinga said: So, would a virus breaking through the cell wall of a bacterium be acting intelligently?

What “non-material” thought processes are causing the virus to manipulate the material world by pushing molecules aside in puncturing a cell wall?

What would you estimate the energies involved in this process to be?

fittest meme said:

eric said: According to you creationists, coded information has only ever been witnessed to have been created by human beings.

Are you claiming to have witnessed something else creating coded information. If not you're right along with them are you not.

So you are not following your own logic. If you did, you ought to logically conclude humans. But you don't. Why not? Why leap to God when Ming the Merciless is a much better fit to your "logic?"

I did not leap to God in my argument . . I concluded that the agent must be living and that it must demonstrate the same characteristic of humans that allows for the production of information . . . intelligence.

The druids too? Where are the Rosicrucians?

eric said:

Atheistoclast said: I know that science is based on observation and that observation depends on perception. The druids used their senses in ways which allowed them to perceive realities that cannot be objectively identified in the lab...at least nor with the current approach.

You assume they could perceive 'life force' because they had a word for it? That seems a little problematical.

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: So, would a virus breaking through the cell wall of a bacterium be acting intelligently?

No the virus would not be acting intelligently but the specified process of breaking through the bacterium cell wall for the purpose of it's eventual reproduction within the host cell would be evidence of intelligence. Just like a virus that infects our computer, the "micro-program" is not itself intelligent. However when we encounter such a virus we rightly conclude that it has been written by an intelligent (although apparently morally corrupt) individual.

What “non-material” thought processes are causing the virus to manipulate the material world by pushing molecules aside in puncturing a cell wall?

Those thought processes that coded the genetic instructions it executes. Like digital code those instructions are basically a series of if/then commands that enable the virus to perform various functions depending upon feedback from it's environment.

What would you estimate the energies involved in this process to be?

I have no idea . . . but I bet you do. If you plan to tell us please provide some explanation of how it is pertinent to our discussion.

fittest meme said:

What would you estimate the energies involved in this process to be?

I have no idea . . . but I bet you do. If you plan to tell us please provide some explanation of how it is pertinent to our discussion.

xubist said: Hold it. Your argument is that since we've only ever seen human beings create coded information, the coded information in living things must have been created by something that m ay or may not be a human being? Dude, you fail logic forever!

Ok, I admit I did not read all of the previous comments. I gave up after about 100 or so.
So, probably, the very same question has been posed before in different forms earlier in the thread.

I don't think one needs to resort to something as complex as a plant to disprove Sewell's argument.
It seems to me that a humble salt crystal would do.

A salt crystal can grow, increasing the number of available microstates (thus, increasing its entropy). Yet, this increase can not stop its gowth, nor should anyone expect it to.
No one could reasonably say that a big, regular salt crystal is in any way less "ordered" than a small one, either.

I don't think there is any "front loaded information" to guide the crystal growth, but I expect Atheistoclast will not agree.
Fittest Meme, Atheistoclast: any comment?

fittest meme said:

xubist said: Hold it. Your argument is that since we've only ever seen human beings create coded information, the coded information in living things must have been created by something that m ay or may not be a human being? Dude, you fail logic forever!

Dude, if I fail logic then the scientists at SETI do too. I think this is a massive waste of money but the same logic is the basis for their efforts. It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

terenzioiltroll said: Ok, I admit I did not read all of the previous comments. I gave up after about 100 or so. So, probably, the very same question has been posed before in different forms earlier in the thread. I don't think one needs to resort to something as complex as a plant to disprove Sewell's argument. It seems to me that a humble salt crystal would do. A salt crystal can grow, increasing the number of available microstates (thus, increasing its entropy). Yet, this increase can not stop its gowth, nor should anyone expect it to. No one could reasonably say that a big, regular salt crystal is in any way less "ordered" than a small one, either. I don't think there is any "front loaded information" to guide the crystal growth, but I expect Atheistoclast will not agree. Fittest Meme, Atheistoclast: any comment?

fittest meme said: Dude, if I fail logic then the scientists at SETI do too. I think this is a massive waste of money but the same logic is the basis for their efforts. It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

unkle.hank said:

fittest meme said: Dude, if I fail logic then the scientists at SETI do too. I think this is a massive waste of money but the same logic is the basis for their efforts. It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

Not to encourage the breeding of red herrings, but the SETI budget for 2011 appears to come in at about $2.5 million. [Source.] If the comparisons in the link provided are accurate, the cost of a single Predator drone could fund SETI at that level for almost two years. But don't let's start comparing the funding of space exploration to military expenditure - it's a conversation that's over and done before it's begun.

Mike Elzinga said:

unkle.hank said:

fittest meme said: Dude, if I fail logic then the scientists at SETI do too. I think this is a massive waste of money but the same logic is the basis for their efforts. It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

Not to encourage the breeding of red herrings, but the SETI budget for 2011 appears to come in at about $2.5 million. [Source.] If the comparisons in the link provided are accurate, the cost of a single Predator drone could fund SETI at that level for almost two years. But don't let's start comparing the funding of space exploration to military expenditure - it's a conversation that's over and done before it's begun.

The costs of Kitzmiller v. Dover, Edwards v. Aguillard, McLean v. Arkansas, Epperson v. Arkansas, and the John Freshwater affair in Mount Vernon, OH comes to more than that. That was all taxpayer money; and a major financial loss for the schools involved. And wasn't Enron great? How about those Wall Street guys?

Mike Elzinga said: The costs of Kitzmiller v. Dover, Edwards v. Aguillard, McLean v. Arkansas, Epperson v. Arkansas, and the John Freshwater affair in Mount Vernon, OH comes to more than [2.5 million]. That was all taxpayer money; and a major financial loss for the schools involved.

fittest meme said: It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

Mike Elzinga said:

fittest meme said:

xubist said: Hold it. Your argument is that since we've only ever seen human beings create coded information, the coded information in living things must have been created by something that m ay or may not be a human being? Dude, you fail logic forever!

Dude, if I fail logic then the scientists at SETI do too. I think this is a massive waste of money but the same logic is the basis for their efforts. It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

Are stars and supernovae intelligent? After all, they created all the elements in the periodic table. And these elements, in turn, combine into literally billions of compounds and complex systems. Did the stars and supernovae put the instructions into the atoms of the periodic table on how to do all this amazing stuff? Did the Big Bang put the information into the quark/gluon plasma to condense into stars and galaxies? Did the information come from “outside” the universe? If all these laws of physics and chemistry which we have learned about are already implicit in what transpired at the Big Bang, why does anything need to come from outside? As it turns out, the universe isn’t as “fine tuned” as ID/creationists claim. Physicists have modeled other universes by finding ensembles of “fundamental constants” that work. What is to say that these other universes could not create “life” of some sort?

Mike you like to use Circular Reasoning don't you?

IBelieveInGod said: Mike you like to use Circular Reasoning don't you?

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said:

fittest meme said:

xubist said: Hold it. Your argument is that since we've only ever seen human beings create coded information, the coded information in living things must have been created by something that m ay or may not be a human being? Dude, you fail logic forever!

Dude, if I fail logic then the scientists at SETI do too. I think this is a massive waste of money but the same logic is the basis for their efforts. It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

Are stars and supernovae intelligent? After all, they created all the elements in the periodic table. And these elements, in turn, combine into literally billions of compounds and complex systems. Did the stars and supernovae put the instructions into the atoms of the periodic table on how to do all this amazing stuff? Did the Big Bang put the information into the quark/gluon plasma to condense into stars and galaxies? Did the information come from “outside” the universe? If all these laws of physics and chemistry which we have learned about are already implicit in what transpired at the Big Bang, why does anything need to come from outside? As it turns out, the universe isn’t as “fine tuned” as ID/creationists claim. Physicists have modeled other universes by finding ensembles of “fundamental constants” that work. What is to say that these other universes could not create “life” of some sort?

How do you know that stars and supernovae created all elements in the periodic table? You have made an absolute statement of fact, therefore provide the proof that this is so, or admit that it is not known to be true. Now Mike where did all the matter come from?

IBelieveInGod said: How do you know that stars and supernovae created all elements in the periodic table? You have made an absolute statement of fact, therefore provide the proof that this is so, or admit that it is not known to be true. Now Mike where did all the matter come from?

unkle.hank said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike you like to use Circular Reasoning don't you?

Baaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha! I sometimes wonder how creationists get dressed in the morning without being strangled by their own underpants. Then I realise that they probably have help.

co said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said:

fittest meme said:

xubist said: Hold it. Your argument is that since we've only ever seen human beings create coded information, the coded information in living things must have been created by something that m ay or may not be a human being? Dude, you fail logic forever!

Dude, if I fail logic then the scientists at SETI do too. I think this is a massive waste of money but the same logic is the basis for their efforts. It is pretty clear that not all attributes of humanness are responsible for creating information. Like identifying that pepper is what gives a dish it's spicy taste we can establish that intelligence as the component of humanness that enabled us to create information.

Are stars and supernovae intelligent? After all, they created all the elements in the periodic table. And these elements, in turn, combine into literally billions of compounds and complex systems. Did the stars and supernovae put the instructions into the atoms of the periodic table on how to do all this amazing stuff? Did the Big Bang put the information into the quark/gluon plasma to condense into stars and galaxies? Did the information come from “outside” the universe? If all these laws of physics and chemistry which we have learned about are already implicit in what transpired at the Big Bang, why does anything need to come from outside? As it turns out, the universe isn’t as “fine tuned” as ID/creationists claim. Physicists have modeled other universes by finding ensembles of “fundamental constants” that work. What is to say that these other universes could not create “life” of some sort?

How do you know that stars and supernovae created all elements in the periodic table? You have made an absolute statement of fact, therefore provide the proof that this is so, or admit that it is not known to be true. Now Mike where did all the matter come from?

Wow. You really haven't any clue about science, do you? Do you have *any* curiosity about the real world? I knew this stuff (read Asimov, or any equivalent young-adult-friendly book) when I was 11. Or -- get this -- maybe you can take an introductory cosmology class. Or watch one online (Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT have some great ones). Or find a text on nucleosynthesis.

So, IBelieve, where in the Bible does it state that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics specifically prevents evolution from happening without the direct, magical intervention of God?

fittest meme said:Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive)......

IBIG said to Mike Elzinga: "You have made an absolute statement of fact, therefore provide the proof that this is so, or admit that it is not known to be true."

dornier.pfeil said:

fittest meme said:Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive)......

In as few words as I can manage and, as a result, undoubtedly leaving myself open to multiple gotchas: Life is a chemical feedback system that utilizes energy cascading down a gradient to maintain it's own stability.

By the way; if I am not mistaken, this IBIG troll is supposed to be permanently restricted to the Bathroom Wall.

This behavior that we are witnessing here is his standard operating procedure before he launches into preaching and further disrupting the thread.

Mike Elzinga said: By the way; if I am not mistaken, this IBIG troll is supposed to be permanently restricted to the Bathroom Wall. This behavior that we are witnessing here is his standard operating procedure before he launches into preaching and further disrupting the thread.

prongs said:

IBIG said to Mike Elzinga: "You have made an absolute statement of fact, therefore provide the proof that this is so, or admit that it is not known to be true."

IBIG thinks we've forgotten his 'gotcha' word game where he says that if you say anything is ABSOLUTE, that proves God. (He once told us that because he is absolutely certain of his birthday, that proves God exists.) IBIG also knows "God's Logic", which states, among other things, that if LOGIC EXITS, that proves God. Such is the extent of his 'Science' and 'Mathematics'. Oh, and by the way, the 'proof' he uses for his own 'absolute statements of fact' is tons of Bible verses and posting entire sermons by Spurgeon. Heaven help us.

Mike Elzinga said:

prongs said:

IBIG said to Mike Elzinga: "You have made an absolute statement of fact, therefore provide the proof that this is so, or admit that it is not known to be true."

IBIG thinks we've forgotten his 'gotcha' word game where he says that if you say anything is ABSOLUTE, that proves God. (He once told us that because he is absolutely certain of his birthday, that proves God exists.) IBIG also knows "God's Logic", which states, among other things, that if LOGIC EXITS, that proves God. Such is the extent of his 'Science' and 'Mathematics'. Oh, and by the way, the 'proof' he uses for his own 'absolute statements of fact' is tons of Bible verses and posting entire sermons by Spurgeon. Heaven help us.

It has occasionally crossed my mind that IBIG is Jason Lisle and his “Nuclear Strength Apologetics” gig. It is hard to imagine how one can become this stupid without years of gut-busting hard work in the art of brain scrambling.

IBIG said to Mike Elzinga: "Now Mike where did all the matter come from?"

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said:

prongs said:

IBIG said to Mike Elzinga: "You have made an absolute statement of fact, therefore provide the proof that this is so, or admit that it is not known to be true."

IBIG thinks we've forgotten his 'gotcha' word game where he says that if you say anything is ABSOLUTE, that proves God. (He once told us that because he is absolutely certain of his birthday, that proves God exists.) IBIG also knows "God's Logic", which states, among other things, that if LOGIC EXITS, that proves God. Such is the extent of his 'Science' and 'Mathematics'. Oh, and by the way, the 'proof' he uses for his own 'absolute statements of fact' is tons of Bible verses and posting entire sermons by Spurgeon. Heaven help us.

It has occasionally crossed my mind that IBIG is Jason Lisle and his “Nuclear Strength Apologetics” gig. It is hard to imagine how one can become this stupid without years of gut-busting hard work in the art of brain scrambling.

This post of Mike's should be sent to the Bathroom Wall. Mike why don't you argue respectfully, and let the argument stand for itself rather then your usual personal attacks. Just answer my questions without the personal attacks, that is the way a real scientist would conduct him/herself.

prongs said:

IBIG said to Mike Elzinga: "Now Mike where did all the matter come from?"

Ou, ou, I just can't wait. No need to wait for Mike's answer. (If he does answer, you'll just needle him to death over not knowing every detail of the history of every atom in the Universe.) Now, where do YOU think all the matter came from? Pray tell us IBIG.

dornier.pfeil said: Updated: Life is a chemical feedback system that utilizes energy cascading down a gradient across the system to maintain the system's stability. Can anyone add to this? It is as much as I can manage.

dornier.pfeil said:

fittest meme said:Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive)......

In as few words as I can manage and, as a result, undoubtedly leaving myself open to multiple gotchas: Life is a chemical feedback system that utilizes energy cascading down a gradient to maintain it's own stability.

Elzinga the Brooding Bandolier offers:Living organisms are systems that exist within a constant energy bath that maintains the molecular structures in a soft-matter state. That is crucial to the functioning of spontaneous electrochemical processes taking place within the system. Hypothermia and hyperthermia are the effects of moving such systems outside their operating range. Crucial electrical coordination and communication among parts gets shut down at low temperatures and become chaotic at high temperatures.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: 1) How are you defining intelligence? 2) Why would an "intelligent agent" have to be alive? 3. Where would an "intelligent agent" come from?

1. That same Webster's Dictionary provides the following relevant definition: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate ones environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria. In this case "abstractly" is meaning theoretical or in the realm of thought. I consider intelligence to be one that has the ability to reason, create ideas, and communicate those ideas through code or action to manipulate their environment. In other words, the ability to establish material reality from non-material thought.

2. It would only have had to be alive during the creative event. In my previous logical progression the characteristic of "being alive" was not necessitated upon intelligence. As was recognized and confirmed by another poster we have only ever witnessed life to have come from other life. Thus the necessary qualities of intelligence and aliveness were independently established.

3. Good question . . . the type of question in fact that drives good philosophical and scientific effort.

Steve P. said: What Elzinga willfully ignores is the fact that when Man is exposed to low temperatures, he doesn't freeze. He takes action. He puts on a parka. He defies hypothermia. Likewise, when Man is exposed to high temperatures, he takes off his Parka, drinks water, puts on his hat, and if too hot, takes refuge in his air-conditioned house. He takes action. He defies hyperthermia. Elzinga is just mulling densities in den cities.

Elzinga the Brooding Bandolier offers:Living organisms are systems that exist within a constant energy bath that maintains the molecular structures in a soft-matter state. That is crucial to the functioning of spontaneous electrochemical processes taking place within the system. Hypothermia and hyperthermia are the effects of moving such systems outside their operating range. Crucial electrical coordination and communication among parts gets shut down at low temperatures and become chaotic at high temperatures.

dornier.pfeil said: Updated: Life is a chemical feedback system that utilizes energy cascading down a gradient across the system to maintain the system's stability. Can anyone add to this? It is as much as I can manage.

dornier.pfeil said:

fittest meme said:Please define "life" without using the concepts of purpose (I want to survive)......

In as few words as I can manage and, as a result, undoubtedly leaving myself open to multiple gotchas: Life is a chemical feedback system that utilizes energy cascading down a gradient to maintain it's own stability.

IBelieveInGod said: How do you know that stars and supernovae created all elements in the periodic table?

I am fascinated by the fact that physics and chemistry makes creationist troll heads explode in almost complete synchronization.

Most of them have ignored the fact that such subjects exist and that they have a lot to do with understanding biological systems. Biochemistry and biophysics are very active areas of research.

And you really have to know things, or you get bitten by jumping into complexities before you understand the basics.

SWT said: So your argument is that because people can don parkas, the second law doesn't apply to biological systems?

Mike Elzinga said:

SWT said: So your argument is that because people can don parkas, the second law doesn't apply to biological systems?

I would like to see Steve P. trying to put on a parka when his core body temperature has dropped to 65 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, his thinking processes will have pretty much shut down. (come to think of it, maybe he is already in a hypothermic state)

Oooo! SQUIRREL!

IBelieveInGod lied: I have been respectful, and have been careful not to go off topic on this thread.

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said:

SWT said: So your argument is that because people can don parkas, the second law doesn't apply to biological systems?

I would like to see Steve P. trying to put on a parka when his core body temperature has dropped to 65 degrees Fahrenheit. At that temperature, his thinking processes will have pretty much shut down. (come to think of it, maybe he is already in a hypothermic state)

Mike is it even possible for you to post without insulting someone?

apokryltaros said: And you, hypocritically, have done absolutely nothing but ask very stupid questions in order to play pointless, annoying word games, and lie, lie, lie, both about the topic, and about your own shameful, disrespectful behavior.

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said: And you, hypocritically, have done absolutely nothing but ask very stupid questions in order to play pointless, annoying word games, and lie, lie, lie, both about the topic, and about your own shameful, disrespectful behavior.

Yup. As I was explaining to Torbjörg Larsson farther up the thread, IBIG taunts until he gets someone annoyed enough to put him in his place; and then he wails PERSECUTION and turns to his audience and says, “See, these atheistic, materialistic, Darwinistic, scientists are just as bad as I said in church the other day. Science is EVIL!” Nothing is ever said about their own sectarian “religion” that trains its followers to do just that kind of taunting and demonizing. What an ugly sect he belongs to; and he thinks it is wonderful. He is not a Christian. He doesn’t even come close to behaving like any of the thousands of Christians I know.

IBelieveInGod said: I want to know what you think, what actual experimental evidence exists demonstrating where matter came from, how it came to be, or if it is your view that matter always existed. What do you think?

No. That's the thing. IBIG really thought that question was up there with "Where does gravity come from?"

Now, the gravity one is a question that doesn't have an answer, yet. What gravity does is very well known, and that gravity is one of the four basic forces of the Universe and an intrinsic expression of matter, that's known. But where gravity comes from and why matter has this expression is not known yet.

But how the elements are made is known. It is known in great detail. It is known from observation and experiment, the way science comes to know things.

Why did Biggy ask either question, then?

It isn't specifically for any creationist or theistic purpose, not directly. He's not directly trying to say that God may operate where our knowledge fails. That's a pretty dumb god-of-the-gaps argument, but Biggy hasn't even got that far, not really.

No, what he's trying to do is something far more simplistic and stupid. He's just generally trying to make the old taunt against science: "You don't know everything!"

That's it, really. That's all he's doing with his gotcha questions. "You don't know everything!" That's the whole of it.

And he keeps doing it, deaf to the obvious response: "No, we don't. In fact, we never will. What of it?"

"You don't know everything," says Biggy, again, smirking.

That's why it's taunting. It's got nothing to do with actual argument. If it were an argument, it would go something along the lines of: "You don't know everything, and therefore the operation of the divine may occur in the unknowns." That's a stupid, easily refuted argument. But "You don't know everything" isn't an argument. It's a taunt, a studied, deliberate, malicious jibe, and nothing more.

In this particular case, the taunt has blown up in Biggy's face. He's ignorant enough to think that the process of stellar nucleosythesis of the elements is a hypothesis, not a repeatedly observed, experimentally confirmed fact. But that's not all.

More than that, he has also confirmed that he isn't bright enough to check his facts, and that he's arrogant enough to assume that he's right automatically.

So Biggy has demonstrated that he is ignorant, stupid and arrogant. And the fact that he uses jibes, not argument, demonstrates that he's malicious, to boot.

Dave Luckett said: So Biggy has demonstrated that he is ignorant, stupid and arrogant. And the fact that he uses jibes, not argument, demonstrates that he's malicious, to boot.

unkle.hank said:

Dave Luckett said: So Biggy has demonstrated that he is ignorant, stupid and arrogant. And the fact that he uses jibes, not argument, demonstrates that he's malicious, to boot.

You mean ... *gasp* ... he's a creationist?

I've been preoccupied with other matters. This thread is getting out of hand. Is there anyone who wants to argue that it is on-topic to talk here about where matter came from, where gravity came from, etc.? I am willing to tolerate the thermodynamic stuff or any arguments about intelligent design that concern what happens after the origin of life.

All the fine-tuning why-do-we-exist stuff is squarely off topic. You have a few posts to argue about its relevance, then I start sending further comments on that to the Wall.

Dave Luckett said: In this particular case, the taunt has blown up in Biggy's face. He's ignorant enough to think that the process of stellar nucleosythesis of the elements is a hypothesis, not a repeatedly observed, experimentally confirmed fact. But that's not all.

Joe Felsenstein said: I've been preoccupied with other matters. This thread is getting out of hand. Is there anyone who wants to argue that it is on-topic to talk here about where matter came from, where gravity came from, etc.? I am willing to tolerate the thermodynamic stuff or any arguments about intelligent design that concern what happens after the origin of life. All the fine-tuning why-do-we-exist stuff is squarely off topic. You have a few posts to argue about its relevance, then I start sending further comments on that to the Wall.

Very simple SWT. They systems in the organism do not violate the SLOT. Water in our bodies evaporate when exposed to heat. Blood in our veins will turn viscose when exposed to polar weather.

BUT. The organism will NOT succumb immediately to the effects of the SLOT. The organism, unlike non-living matter, will not change form immediately upon being exposed to extreme temperatures. It recognizes a core temperature needs to be maintained and action is taken to reverse the effects of the SLOT to maintain that core temperature. Hence when I say individual organisms 'obstruct' the SLOT since they eventually die from the cumulative effects of the SLOT over time.

Another BUT. Life in general does violate the SLOT since each individual organism replicates itself in time to avoid the effects of the SLOT; i.e. death.

The issue is here, how did early life avoid the effects of the SLOT. This goes back to a thread where Flint and I had an exchange on how early life was able to 'evolve' all its systems, which are prerequisite to its very survival.

How were early organisms capable of sustaining their increasingly complex organizations? How were they capable to withstand the effect of extreme temperature swings? It seems the more complex the organism the more sensative it would be to changes in temperature and thus harder to sustain increased complexity. So complexity is needed to block the effects of the SLOT, yet at the same time, complexity increases the risk of succumbing to the SLOT. Just one more conundrum.

To say it is just physics and chemistry is to avoid a head-on collision with reality. If it were that simple, we'd have a firm grip on it by now. But alas, we don't. Logically, there is a something else, a missing ingredient, something we need to think outtadabox to wrap our brains around.

Information as an separate, independent domain is just that sort of idea. Regardless if it is an idea influenced by theistic concepts. It is an attractive solution and amenable to investigation.

Whatever it is, it's TBA not DOA.

I have been respectful, and have been careful not to go off topic on this thread.

Steve P. said: The organism, unlike non-living matter, will not change form immediately upon being exposed to extreme temperatures.

Hence when I say individual organisms ‘obstruct’ the SLOT since they eventually die from the cumulative effects of the SLOT over time

Rolf said:

IBIG:I have been respectful, and have been careful not to go off topic on this thread.

They are incurable. They make me sad. Even the most rational responses trigger barrages of stupid questions, absurd claims, preaching and ridicule. People obviously not interested in knowledge, asking gotchas posing as questions they already should know the answers to - if they really wanted to know. Not to mention all the questions that doesn't even make sense. Why are you here at all? What is your contribution?

As a regular reader and occasional poster on PT, I want to sincerely thank the real scientists on this site who spend time "talking to the mushrooms"! (love the quote Mike). This thread is a great example of the intellectual and moral vacuum that the creationists operate in and demonstrates that they only want to build higher and thicker the internal firewalls to protect their "true" beliefs.

It still shocks me how fact avoidance is hard wired into some people who survive on the martyr "syndrome", but I guess I should understand that religion(s) depend on persecution to sustain themselves.

Thanks again!

Steve P. said: [A bunch of incorrect stuff]

SWT wrote:

"Finally: you dismiss life as having to be “more than just physics and chemistry”. The whole time you’ve been posting here, I haven’t seen any sign that you understand the basic principles of the disciplines you claim aren’t up to the task. Before you can legitimately make such a claim, you really need to actually learn physics and chemistry. You know, take a class. Get and read a textbook and do the problems. Come back when you can easily answer Mike Eliznga’s quiz (it’s really basic material) rather than having to resort to complaints that it’s some sort of gotcha question."

Well said.

Indeed this is the exact same "strategy" used by Joe B. and Steve P. and even to some extent IBIGOT. They are all demonstrably ignorant of the science that they denigrate. Now perhaps that could be forgiven. But what is morally and intellectually reprehensible is the fact that, when confronted with evidence of their own ignorance, they refuse to admit their inadequacies, as if no one else could see them. That's why they refuse to answer questions and examine evidence, they literally haven't got a clue. FORtunately, everyone can see this.

So what's left for the enterprising troll. The only thing remaining is to ape the behavior of real scientists. That's why they ask questions, albeit is stupid and ignorant ones that only serve to further demonstrate their own incompetence. It's learned behavior. It's simply the strategy that was so effective against them. They figure what's good for the knowledgable is good for the ignorant. FOrtunately, everyone can se this.

Of course, when it comes to evidence they have no response. They demand evidence of others, then refuse to provide any themselves. So now what? THey cite references that don't support their claims. THey make stuff up and hope no one will notice. But mostly, they try to deflect attention away form the undeniable fact that they have absolutely no evidence. They insult and taunt, they throw hissy fits, they threaten and promise retribution. But still they have no evidence. FOrtunately everyone can see this.

Perhaps the trolls should consider the irreparable harm that they are doing to their own religious institutions by being such good example of dishonesty and deceit. Perhaps then they would stop wasting their time in such a vain pursuit. Perhaps not.

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I've been preoccupied with other matters. This thread is getting out of hand. Is there anyone who wants to argue that it is on-topic to talk here about where matter came from, where gravity came from, etc.? I am willing to tolerate the thermodynamic stuff or any arguments about intelligent design that concern what happens after the origin of life. All the fine-tuning why-do-we-exist stuff is squarely off topic. You have a few posts to argue about its relevance, then I start sending further comments on that to the Wall.

I prefer sticking to the topic rather than dealing with that IBIG stalker. My understanding is that he is supposed to be confined to the Bathroom Wall. He continues to be one of the most disruptive trolls on PT.

Are stars and supernovae intelligent? After all, they created all the elements in the periodic table. And these elements, in turn, combine into literally billions of compounds and complex systems. Did the stars and supernovae put the instructions into the atoms of the periodic table on how to do all this amazing stuff? Did the Big Bang put the information into the quark/gluon plasma to condense into stars and galaxies? Did the information come from “outside” the universe? If all these laws of physics and chemistry which we have learned about are already implicit in what transpired at the Big Bang, why does anything need to come from outside? As it turns out, the universe isn’t as “fine tuned” as ID/creationists claim. Physicists have modeled other universes by finding ensembles of “fundamental constants” that work. What is to say that these other universes could not create “life” of some sort?

Joe Felsenstein said: Is there anyone who wants to argue that it is on-topic to talk here about where matter came from, where gravity came from, etc.?

Steve P said:Life in general does violate the SLOT since each individual organism replicates itself in time to avoid the effects of the SLOT; i.e. death.

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: I want to know what you think, what actual experimental evidence exists demonstrating where matter came from, how it came to be, or if it is your view that matter always existed. What do you think?

There is an entire, multi-hundred page reference manual called the "table of isotopes" that provides extensive detail on experimentally discovered nuclear reactions, their energies, cross-sections, etc. as well as nuclear structure detail. The reactions we've done in the lab - the "actual experimental evidence" - includes multiple (n, beta-) reactions which produce heavier elements from lighter ones. Nuclear physicists and chemists run these reactions every day. They factually occur, there is simply no question about this: you put light elements in a flux of neutrons, you get heavier elements. Stars produce huge neutron fluxes. As if that wasn't enough, we directly observe spectral lines associated with a variety of elements when looking at supernovae. IOW we can literally watch heavier elements being made by observing the light emanating from (some, large) stars before and after they explode. ALL of this information is very commonly available. In the approximate hour that you lurked and responded (between about 7:19 and 8:09), you could've easily googled this information for yourself. But you didn't, because you have no real interest in learning anything. I bet even with this prompting, you won't look up any mainstream reference to stellar nucleosynthesis or neutron capture reactions. You would rather ignore the fact that we've answered your question and pretend we didn't, then learn for yourself how stars created the elements without any divine assistance.

Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles. It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.

Also, Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.

I forgot to post the source of the quotes:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, you can't have matter without energy, and you can't have energy without matter. They are two different forms of the same thing.

OK, starting now (fires starter pistol) all posts on where matter comes from, where energy comes from, where the Universe comes from, and anything else that precedes the origin of life is sent to The Wall.

I will allow 2LOT discussion but let's try to concentrate it on living systems.

I have inquired of the PT crew mailing list whether IBelieveInGod is supposed to be confined to the Wall, and will enforce that if it is verified by them.

And folks, two points. I know that we all have frustrations in our lives, and need somewhere to "let off steam". And I know that when trolls stir up off-topic discussions and then refuse to really engage with them, that is infuriating. But troll-chasing is as much a problem at PT as trolling is. And trolls love to stir up a nest of hornets and then complain that they are being stung unfairly. We can avoid a lot of this noise with a little restraint.

IBelieveInGod said: But Eric, my question was where did matter come from? It wasn't my contention that elements couldn't be forged in stars,

How do you know that stars and supernovae created all elements in the periodic table?

Joe Felsenstein said: In my article refuting the arguments of William Dembski, which you will find here, I have a section where I argue that natural selection can create specified information. If "fittest meme" finds something specifically wrong with my argument, I hope that he will inform us. I ask this very gently so as not to be accused of "taunting".

Oops. Here's the link to the talk by Peter and Rosemary Grant that I referenced. This was originally posted by Steve Matheson here several weeks ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMcVY__T3Ho

Once again fattest meme demonstrates that he has no evidence for ID whatsoever. Instead, he take time out of his busy schedule to argue about the definition of information and complexity.

The fact that he can find some examples of information supposedly being decreased is not evidence that information is always decreased. He knows full well what the source of genetic variation is, he has been told many times. He is in the same boat as Joe B. being forced to argue that, since humans and chimps shared a common ancestor, that humans had to devolve from apes. Their boat is full of crap and is sinking fast.

SInce none of the trolls can address the topic of the thread, since they seem intent only sidetracking the issue, since they refuse to answer the questions put to them, since they continue to fling falsehoods and irrelevancies, I say time to dump them to the bathroom wall where they should have been confined in the first place. Joe has been more than patient, but he really is a scientist and he really does have more important things to do than babysit a bunch of petulant know nothings.

If the administrators cannot find a way to permanently confine the trolls, this is what they can expect for every thread. Seriously, they have been given enough chances. It is obvious that their only goal is deception and disruption. Even the bathroom wall is more respect than they deserve, isn't that the least that we can do?

fittest meme said: Joe I think the example you provided is evidence of the reduction in information not an increase.

eric said:

fittest meme said: Joe I think the example you provided is evidence of the reduction in information not an increase.

So, if you think there's a reduction then you must agree that information is not conserved, right? This is a simple yes or no question FM. Is information a conserved quantity, or not?

fittest meme said: Information is subject to the same sort of natural forces that lead to the degradation of matter and energy without outside input. In other words, without outside input, information is also subject to forces similar to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Thus it is not naturally conserved.

fittest meme said:

eric said:

fittest meme said: Joe I think the example you provided is evidence of the reduction in information not an increase.

So, if you think there's a reduction then you must agree that information is not conserved, right? This is a simple yes or no question FM. Is information a conserved quantity, or not?

Yes. Information is subject to the same sort of natural forces that lead to the degradation of matter and energy without outside input. In other words, without outside input, information is also subject to forces similar to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Thus it is not naturally conserved. Mutations (ie mistakes in duplication) cause written instructions to have less and less utility the more they are copied. In our bodies this reality manifests itself in the aging process. In the publication industry it is why great care is often put into retaining an original copy of important documents. Copies made from an original will always be of better quality (ie have better specificity to the original intent of the author) than copies.

SWT said: You really can't have it both ways on this one -- either it is or it isn't, there's no middle ground.

Steve P. said: Very simple SWT. They systems in the organism do not violate the SLOT. Water in our bodies evaporate when exposed to heat. Blood in our veins will turn viscose when exposed to polar weather.

BUT. The organism will NOT succumb immediately to the effects of the SLOT. The organism, unlike non-living matter, will not change form immediately upon being exposed to extreme temperatures. It recognizes a core temperature needs to be maintained and action is taken to reverse the effects of the SLOT to maintain that core temperature. Hence when I say individual organisms ‘obstruct’ the SLOT since they eventually die from the cumulative effects of the SLOT over time. Another BUT. Life in general does violate the SLOT since each individual organism replicates itself in time to avoid the effects of the SLOT; i.e. death.

To say it is just physics and chemistry is to avoid a head-on collision with reality. If it were that simple, we’d have a firm grip on it by now. But alas, we don’t. Logically, there is a something else, a missing ingredient, something we need to think outtadabox to wrap our brains around.

SWT said: So please clarify: is information a conserved quantity? Yes or no, please.

eric said:

SWT said: You really can't have it both ways on this one -- either it is or it isn't, there's no middle ground.

FM is, of course, trying to claim it can only change in one way. In this case: reduce but not increase. Its amusing that he makes a comparison to entropy, given that entropy does change both ways. This, of course, is where IBIG, Atheistoclast, and FM all seem to flub their understanding of entropy: local increases are permitted by the 2LOT in open systems. If information is defined as an entropy-like quantity,* the same will be true for it. Organisms are open systems. Photons, mutagenic chemicals, etc., have traits (such as wavelength, spin angular momentum, chemical potential, etc.) which can impact a sequence and result in a different seqence that produces more complex developmental features. And that is all that is needed to produce CSI. *Bringing up the next creationist problem, which is that they don't define information. But 'entropy-like' is not a terrible assumption when one considers that Shannon's entropy has the same mathematical form as Boltzmann's.

… We obtain the equation ∫dQ/T = S - S₀ which, while somewhat differently arranged, is the same as that which was formerly used to determine S. If we wish to designate S by a proper name we can say of it that it is the transformation content of the body, in the same way that we say of the quantity U that it is the heat and work content of the body. However, since I think it is better to take the names of such quantities as these, which are important for science, from the ancient languages, so that they can be introduced without change into all the modern languages, I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word η τροπη, a transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy, since both these quantities, which are to be known by these names, are so nearly related to each other in their physical significance that a certain similarity in their names seemed to me advantageous. …

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. "Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

fittest meme said: Joe I think the example you provided is evidence of the reduction in information not an increase. I think that the reason for your confusion stems from your conflation of the definitions of specificity and information.

If I understood your argument correctly you argue that after this process has taken place we have a higher degree of certainty about what type of phenotype will be expressed. I believe that you were equating this certainty to specification, and then concluding that the increased certainty that an individual born would specifically have brown hair for instance, was demonstration of increased information.

fittest meme said:

SWT said: So please clarify: is information a conserved quantity? Yes or no, please.

I think you're emphasis on semantics is causing you to miss what I am obviously saying. If it is easier for you I will say that: regarding information I agree with Dembski.

IBelieveInGod said: Organisms are open systems? So, what makes them open systems?

Were complex molecules open systems prior to being able to replicate or before they developed a metabolism?

Joe Felsenstein said: I'd really like to bet against "fittest meme". If you had a field of 8 horses, and were uncertain which one was going to win a race, and then along came a tipster who had inside information, and he said the race was fixed and horse 3 was certain to win, what would "fittest meme" and I do? I'd bet on horse 3. As far as I could see "fittest meme" would spurn the tip, and say that he didn't need it as it represented a decrease in information. I'd win a lot of money off of him.

fittest meme said: It would be wise for readers of this board to take the same advice. Evidence of deception by self-interested parties usually becomes evident if you take the time to do your own research. I think you'll find that depending upon so called "experts" is often less productive in predicting outcomes than using your own common sense. Neither an impressive degree, nor influential position with some academic institution is necessary to access the truth.

fittest meme said: I think you're emphasis on semantics is causing you to miss what I am obviously saying. If it is easier for you I will say that: regarding information I agree with Dembski.

Secondly, unless Joe can suggest some other source, the presence of information (the 4 alleles) which Joe assumed at the beginning of his example must have come from someplace outside the closed, sample population as Dembski suggests in the third and fourth point of his LOCI.

SWT said: Excuse me for trying to understand your meaning.

IBelieveInGod said: Organisms are open systems? So, what makes them open systems?

Decreasing entropy is NOT increasing information.

Decreasing entropy is NOT “advancing on an evolutionary scale.”

Decreasing entropy is NOT an indication of “increasing order.”

Decreasing entropy is NOT an indication that energy is leaving a system.

Decreasing entropy is NOT a more “beneficial state” in a complex system such as a living organism.

Entropy has nothing to do with information or disorder.

Have any of our ID/creationist “debaters” picked up yet on the difference between what Henry Morris bequeathed to the ID/creationist movement and what real science is all about? Have any of them picked up on Dembski’s misconceptions?

eric said: But Demsbski says its a conserved quantity. If Demski is right, the amount of information in the universe cannot decrease, either, and the whole fundamentalist concept that living creatures are degenerating is false.

IBelieveInGod said: Organisms are open systems?

So, what makes them open systems?

fittest meme said:

eric said: But Demsbski says its a conserved quantity. If Demski is right, the amount of information in the universe cannot decrease, either, and the whole fundamentalist concept that living creatures are degenerating is false.

Please post a reference to Dembski referring to information in such a way that he says the amount of energy in the universe cannot decrease. Point one of his Law of Conservation of Information seems to contradict your understanding of his position. "1. The specified complexity in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases." This quote by the way, is right from the link I provided in my previous post.

eric said:

fittest meme said: I think you're emphasis on semantics is causing you to miss what I am obviously saying. If it is easier for you I will say that: regarding information I agree with Dembski.

But Demsbski says its a conserved quantity. You seem to be contradicting your very last post.

Mike Elzinga said:

fittest meme said:

eric said: But Demsbski says its a conserved quantity. If Demski is right, the amount of information in the universe cannot decrease, either, and the whole fundamentalist concept that living creatures are degenerating is false.

Please post a reference to Dembski referring to information in such a way that he says the amount of energy in the universe cannot decrease. Point one of his Law of Conservation of Information seems to contradict your understanding of his position. "1. The specified complexity in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases." This quote by the way, is right from the link I provided in my previous post.

How about this PUBLISHED paper by Dembski and Marks? Can you pick out the misconceptions about how matter behaves? I’ll bet you can’t. Can you explain any of the concepts like “endogenous information,” “exogenous information,” and “active information?” Can you justify the introduction of these concepts?

It would be wise for readers of this board to take the same advice. Evidence of deception by self-interested parties usually becomes evident if you take the time to do your own research.

I think you’ll find that depending upon so called “experts” is often less productive in predicting outcomes than using your own common sense. Neither an impressive degree, nor influential position with some academic institution is necessary to access the truth.

fittest meme said:

eric said: But Demsbski says its a conserved quantity. If Demski is right, the amount of information in the universe cannot decrease, either, and the whole fundamentalist concept that living creatures are degenerating is false.

"1. The specified complexity in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases." This quote by the way, is right from the link I provided in my previous post.

fittest meme said: Please post a reference to Dembski referring to information in such a way that he says the amount of energy in the universe cannot decrease.

[From link above] Thus we define the measure of information in an event of probability p as -log2p (see Shannon and Weaver, 1949, p. 32; Hamming, 1986; or indeed any mathematical introduction to information theory).

eric said: So, this makes it very easy. If you subscribe to Demski's definition of information, you are subscribing to a definition that allows random and undirected changes to the DNA code to increase the information contained within it.

“1. The specified complexity in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases.” This quote by the way, is right from the link I provided in my previous post.

Copies made from an original will always be of better quality (ie have better specificity to the original intent of the author) than copies

fittest meme said:

eric said: But Demsbski says its a conserved quantity. If Demski is right, the amount of information in the universe cannot decrease, either, and the whole fundamentalist concept that living creatures are degenerating is false.

Please post a reference to Dembski referring to information in such a way that he says the amount of energy in the universe cannot decrease. Point one of his Law of Conservation of Information seems to contradict your understanding of his position. "1. The specified complexity in a closed system of natural causes remains constant or decreases." This quote by the way, is right from the link I provided in my previous post.

This is very entertaining.

It's like Deep Thought asking for clarification from Vroomfondel and Majikthyse.

"You know, just everything!"

Rolf said: IBIG never make sense: (actually that was me: fittest meme)

Copies made from an original will always be of better quality (ie have better specificity to the original intent of the author) than copies (the end of the sentence should have read "copies made from copies").

I can set up my computer to copy gigabyte files from copies of gigabyte files 24/7 all year round and not a bit lost or corrupted. You don’t believe it, but please try it yourself! I trust a glass of red wine and a couple of ham sandwiches sees me safely through this night too.

fittest meme said: I'm sure Mike can figure out a way to make this much more complicated and maybe even mathematically diagram it for us. Maybe we could also get someone to write a whole paper on the definition of "^%*!" Lacking that, I think most of you will appreciate the plain truth in my point without need for extra verbage.

Unfortunately for fattest meme, that isn't how evolution works.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Mike Elzinga said: How do you feel about Henry Morris; the father of all of ID/creationism’s misconceptions? Is he a hero to you?

fittest meme said: Do you think you will want to make a back-up file before we start this process? Or are you comfortable just letting it run and then submitting whatever is spit out of the machine 365 day later. I think I'd make a master copy. Then again, fittest meme's commonsense law of conservation is that ^%*! happens!

fittest meme said: I have only one hero. I hold him in high regard because he was born into this world to testify to the truth.

Mike Elzinga said: Yes, getting your sectarian dogma into the schools has always been what ID/creationism is all about.

fittest meme said: I didn't know about him [Morris] before you brought him up. In fact many of the places and people you say I'm parroting are new to me.

fittest meme said: That would be of course unless the "tipster" turned out to be a "shyster." I'd be concentrating on the actual evidence of the horse's history, jockey, track conditions, etc. I'd also assume that most horse races are won based upon true and fair competition not because of outside immoral influence. I'd do this because eventually such immoral influence is discovered and judged. Associating and depending upon "shysters" isn't a smart long-term strategy.

I think you’re emphasis on semantics is causing you to miss what I am obviously saying. If it is easier for you I will say that: regarding information I agree with Dembski.

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yes, getting your sectarian dogma into the schools has always been what ID/creationism is all about.

And keeping it out is what yours is all about? You are opposed to holding up a hero who testifies to the truth?

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yes, getting your sectarian dogma into the schools has always been what ID/creationism is all about.

And keeping it out is what yours is all about? You are opposed to holding up a hero who testifies to the truth?

IBelieveInGod said:

eric said:

SWT said: You really can't have it both ways on this one -- either it is or it isn't, there's no middle ground.

FM is, of course, trying to claim it can only change in one way. In this case: reduce but not increase. Its amusing that he makes a comparison to entropy, given that entropy does change both ways. This, of course, is where IBIG, Atheistoclast, and FM all seem to flub their understanding of entropy: local increases are permitted by the 2LOT in open systems. If information is defined as an entropy-like quantity,* the same will be true for it. Organisms are open systems. Photons, mutagenic chemicals, etc., have traits (such as wavelength, spin angular momentum, chemical potential, etc.) which can impact a sequence and result in a different seqence that produces more complex developmental features. And that is all that is needed to produce CSI. *Bringing up the next creationist problem, which is that they don't define information. But 'entropy-like' is not a terrible assumption when one considers that Shannon's entropy has the same mathematical form as Boltzmann's.

Organisms are open systems? So, what makes them open systems? Were complex molecules open systems prior to being able to replicate or before they developed a metabolism?

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yes, getting your sectarian dogma into the schools has always been what ID/creationism is all about.

And keeping it out is what yours is all about? You are opposed to holding up a hero who testifies to the truth?

fittest meme said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yes, getting your sectarian dogma into the schools has always been what ID/creationism is all about.

And keeping it out is what yours is all about? You are opposed to holding up a hero who testifies to the truth?

OK, folks, we stop now with all the discussion of "fittest meme's" invocation of his "hero" and people denouncing this view (however correctly) as one he is trying to force into the schools. All that, henceforth, goes to the Wall.

I'd like to know if the 2nd law is factored into discussion on the concentration gradients of chemical morphogens during development. Anyone have any thoughts? It kind of has a big bearing on what Felsenstein has remarked about plant growth.

Joe Felsenstein said: OK, folks, we stop now with all the discussion of "fittest meme's" invocation of his "hero" and people denouncing this view (however correctly) as one he is trying to force into the schools. All that, henceforth, goes to the Wall.

So, basically, 5-6 hours after I posted the fact that Dembski uses Shannon Entropy as his definition of "Information" - and that this definition is perfectly consistent with natural processes increasing information - FM has posted multiple times but not addressed it.

Atheistoclast still thinks rockets break physical laws by going up.

And IBIG has yet to acknowledge that eating and breathing may have something to do with organisms not being closed systems.

Really weak, guys. Creationism isn't looking very good right now.

At this point, may I suggest that you correct each others errors? FM, maybe you want to explain to 'Clast why rocket thrust doesn't disobey gravity. 'Clast, you can explain to IBIG why organisms aren't closed systems. IBIG, you can explain to FM how -log(p) can increase via mutation.

That way, the rest of us can take a breather from repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

eric said: So, basically, 5-6 hours after I posted the fact that Dembski uses Shannon Entropy as his definition of "Information" - and that this definition is perfectly consistent with natural processes increasing information - FM has posted multiple times but not addressed it. Atheistoclast still thinks rockets break physical laws by going up. And IBIG has yet to acknowledge that eating and breathing may have something to do with organisms not being closed systems. Really weak, guys. Creationism isn't looking very good right now. At this point, may I suggest that you correct each others errors? FM, maybe you want to explain to 'Clast why rocket thrust doesn't disobey gravity. 'Clast, you can explain to IBIG why organisms aren't closed systems. IBIG, you can explain to FM how -log(p) can increase via mutation. That way, the rest of us can take a breather from repeating ourselves ad nauseum.

IBelieveInGod said: I never said that organisms were closed systems. A living organism is an open system, and can freely exchange energy and matter with it's surroundings. Now why can it exchange energy and matter with it's surroundings?

I don't always ask questions because I don't know something, but rather to pin down what others believe here.

I never said that organisms were closed systems.

Organisms are open systems?

Now why can it exchange energy and matter with it's surroundings?

fittest meme said: I'd be concentrating on the actual evidence of the horse's history, jockey, track conditions, etc. I'd also assume that most horse races are won based upon true and fair competition not because of outside immoral influence.

Biggie, having made his ignorance of simple facts plain, is retreating into transcendentalism. He's not asking about what is, any more. He's asking why it is. But the question contains a barb.

The word "why" is one of the peskiest words in the English language, because it has two meanings (at least) and those meanings are intertwined in an almost unconscious way.

The first meaning is "What causes?" This is meant when, for instance, watching an apple fall. "What causes this apple to fall?" can be asked as "Why does this apple fall?", and the answer can be, and is, a natural, blind, automatically acting force.

The other meaning is "With what intent?" This is meant when you ask someone "Why did you do that?" and expecting a reply that covers reason, motivation, intent, expected outcome - things intrinsic to intelligence.

At the periphery, the several meanings of that word can become mixed. "Why is there a European financial crisis?" for example, is a question that intermingles "What causes?" and "With what intent?" in interesting ways.

Biggy's operating at this confluence. He asks why an organism can exchange energy and matter with its surroundings. Of course a "with what cause?" answer will not actually satisfy him. Such an answer would go something along the lines of that these processes are a necessary implication of the laws of thermodynamics.

But for Biggy, this isn't enough. He wants an answer of the "with what intent?" variety, and he'll simply ask "why" again if he doesn't get it: "Why do the laws of thermodynamics imply this?"

This is the nine-year-old's notion of argumentation, of course. Eventually, if continued for long enough, the "with what cause?" track will end in an unknown, and the nine-year-old will then chortle triumphantly: "See, you don't know!" This arises simply from the fact that everything will never, can never, be known, and it simply ignores what is actually known. It illegitimately implies that imperfect or incomplete knowledge is not knowledge at all.

But there's another illegitimate outcome, and that's what he's angling for. Asking why with a "with what intent?" meaning necessarily assumes intent. It begs the question, ie it assumes what is to be shown. There is no necessary implication of intent to these processes. They arise because of natural causes, just like the apple's fall does, and there is no reason to believe that there is any intent to them.

But Biggy can't conceive of no intent to life. I don't know if there is or there isn't. All I can say is that the existence of life and its conformity with known natural processes and the expression of them that we call "natural laws" is not evidence for such an intent.

Dave Luckett said: But Biggy can't conceive of no intent to life. I don't know if there is or there isn't. All I can say is that the existence of life and its conformity with known natural processes and the expression of them that we call "natural laws" is not evidence for such an intent.

Lacking that, I think most of you will appreciate the plain truth in my point without need for extra verbage.

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, here is Henry Morris’ pseudo-scholarship back in 1973.

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. "Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

Atheistoclast said: I'd like to know if the 2nd law is factored into discussion on the concentration gradients of chemical morphogens during development. Anyone have any thoughts? It kind of has a big bearing on what Felsenstein has remarked about plant growth.

SWT said:

Atheistoclast said: I'd like to know if the 2nd law is factored into discussion on the concentration gradients of chemical morphogens during development. Anyone have any thoughts? It kind of has a big bearing on what Felsenstein has remarked about plant growth.

Yes.

As Joe will eventually learn, scientists conceived, developed and tested the second law of thermodynamics. They are aware of what it really predicts, regardless of his misconceptions.

And no, rockets do not violate the SLOT, neither do concentration gradients, diffusion, facilitated diffusion or active transport. Development does not violate the SLOT, nor does evolution, ecology, genetics or metabolism. Oddly enough, the only thing that violates the SLOT is god. Kinda of makes you wonder why creationists are so fond of SLOT arguments don't it?

When Joe finally learns this he will know everything. After all, according to him, he is already real close.

Okay now let me ask this, earth is an open system because it is able to exchange matter and energy with the universe, and other planets in our solar system are also open correct?

IBelieveInGod said: Okay now let me ask this, earth is an open system because it is able to exchange matter and energy with the universe, and other planets in our solar system are also open correct?

DS said: Oddly enough, the only thing that violates the SLOT is god.

terenzioiltroll said:

DS said: Oddly enough, the only thing that violates the SLOT is god.

Please, allow me a little off-topic. God *created* the SLOT. I don't really see why He should violate the natural laws He Himself put into being in the first place. This is something that I find pretty hard to come to terms with, in all the reasonings and the argumentations proposed by Atheistoclast, Fittest Meme, IBIG and various other commenters in this thread. God actively wanted the universe to work the way it works: if He had found something wrong with the termodynamics, I am pretty adamant He would have taken care of it aeons ago. I find it blasphemy and somewhat un-Christian to maintain otherwise. Ok, this comment is about religious matters: I see by myself that it belongs to the BW, but I had to say it just the same...

But as nothing is absolutely true save by divine decree alone, it is evident that the universal laws of nature are the very decrees of God, which result necessarily from the perfection of the Divine nature. If, therefore, anything happened in nature at large repugnant to its universal laws, this would be equally and necessarily repugnant to the decrees and intelligence of God; so that any one who maintained that God acted in opposition to the laws of nature would at the same time be forced to maintain that God acted in opposition to his proper nature, an idea than which nothing can be imagined more absurd. I might show the same thing, or strengthen what I have just said, by referring to the truth, that the power of nature is in fact the Divine Power; Divine Power is the very essence of God himself. But this I pass by for the present. Nothing, then, happens in nature[1] which is in contradiction with its universal laws.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: On the other hand, here is Henry Morris’ pseudo-scholarship back in 1973.

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. "Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

I'd like to point out that the original use of the word "evolution" in biology referred to the development of an individual living thing. Often in the context of the theory of "preformation". I think that this suggests that if there is a conflict between "entropy" and "evolution", then it would apply at least as much to a conflict between "entropy" and "reproduction". This is not just a quibble about the etymology of the word "evolution". One of our creationist correspondents has raised the issue of whether a living thing is an "open system". If a living thing is not an open system, and if that means that the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids the development of a living thing, then that means that 2lot is incompatible with reproduction. (Not against evolution. For does anyone question whether a species, a population, a clade, or a "kind" is an open system?) So many of the arguments which are purportedly against evolution turn out to be at least as relevant to reproduction.

I just want to thank Joe for this thread. Nothing seems to highlight the Creationists' ignorance of science like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is amazing to me how many stupid, inane arguments regarding the SLoT (and gravity, etc..) have been put forth by no less than four of our resident creotrolls. I actually had atleast one good laugh on every single page. Thanks again.

Robin said: I believe the argument they (atheistoclast, fittest meme, IBIG, etc) are attempting to make is that [i]since[/i] evolution violates SLoT the theory of evolution must be wrong. [...] It's just that simple.

Atheistoclast | November 19, 2011 3:45 PM | Reply | Edit Actually Felsenstein doesn’t realize that morphogenesis itself contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here, we see cells synergistically interact with each other in a fully deterministic way to produce a predetermined morphological goal. This is not what you expect from a biochemical environment that involves countless exchanges of information flows of energy. I think you can safely use the 2nd law to refute the claim that morphogenesis is the sum of spontaneous natural processes because we should see dissipation and disorder as a result of the expenditure of useable energy, and yet we see a highly organized synthesis instead. This indicates the necessary presence of an external factor or input.

Mike Elzinga said: What is your point?

terenzioiltroll said: See, for instance, this comment:

Atheistoclast | November 19, 2011 3:45 PM | Reply | Edit Actually Felsenstein doesn’t realize that morphogenesis itself contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

He is actually stating that reality is self contraddictory; either that or the development of an embryo is a miracle (and needs a direct intervention of God to stomp over His own work).

terenzioiltroll said:

DS said: Oddly enough, the only thing that violates the SLOT is god.

Please, allow me a little off-topic. God *created* the SLOT. I don't really see why He should violate the natural laws He Himself put into being in the first place. This is something that I find pretty hard to come to terms with, in all the reasonings and the argumentations proposed by Atheistoclast, Fittest Meme, IBIG and various other commenters in this thread. God actively wanted the universe to work the way it works: if He had found something wrong with the termodynamics, I am pretty adamant He would have taken care of it aeons ago. I find it blasphemy and somewhat un-Christian to maintain otherwise. Ok, this comment is about religious matters: I see by myself that it belongs to the BW, but I had to say it just the same...

Joe Felsenstein said: "See that enzyme complex? See it doing This and doing That? Notice that there is no way of explaining that based on our thorough understanding of its molecular structure? See, you can see the ghost acting, right ... there! You all saw that! So vitalism is right and there is a ghost in there acting, right as we watch." The effect would be revolutionary and cataclysmic, a Nobel Prize for sure.

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: What is your point?

My point is that the 2lot argument works no worse as an argument for scientific storkism.

Dave Luckett said: Biggie, having made his ignorance of simple facts plain, is retreating into transcendentalism. He's not asking about what is, any more. He's asking why it is. But the question contains a barb. The word "why" is one of the peskiest words in the English language, because it has two meanings (at least) and those meanings are intertwined in an almost unconscious way. Good discussion snipped

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: Okay now let me ask this, earth is an open system because it is able to exchange matter and energy with the universe, and other planets in our solar system are also open correct?

Yes. These are all open systems. So is the sun. So is the galaxy. Get to the point, please.

terenzioiltroll said:

Robin said: I believe the argument they (atheistoclast, fittest meme, IBIG, etc) are attempting to make is that [i]since[/i] evolution violates SLoT the theory of evolution must be wrong. [...] It's just that simple.

I am afraid it is not. See, for instance, this comment:

Atheistoclast | November 19, 2011 3:45 PM | Reply | Edit Actually Felsenstein doesn’t realize that morphogenesis itself contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Here, we see cells synergistically interact with each other in a fully deterministic way to produce a predetermined morphological goal. This is not what you expect from a biochemical environment that involves countless exchanges of information flows of energy. I think you can safely use the 2nd law to refute the claim that morphogenesis is the sum of spontaneous natural processes because we should see dissipation and disorder as a result of the expenditure of useable energy, and yet we see a highly organized synthesis instead. This indicates the necessary presence of an external factor or input.

He is actually stating that reality is self contraddictory; either that or the development of an embryo is a miracle (and needs a direct intervention of God to stomp over His own work).

fnxtr said: He's going to segue into "Privileged Planet" bullshit. I called it.

Robin said: I believe the argument they (atheistoclast, fittest meme, IBIG, etc) are attempting to make is that [i]since[/i] evolution violates SLoT the theory of evolution must be wrong. The problem with the argument is that of course evolution does not violate SLoT in any way.

bigdakine said:

Dave Luckett said: Biggie, having made his ignorance of simple facts plain, is retreating into transcendentalism. He's not asking about what is, any more. He's asking why it is. But the question contains a barb. The word "why" is one of the peskiest words in the English language, because it has two meanings (at least) and those meanings are intertwined in an almost unconscious way. Good discussion snipped

Of course, science doesn't answer questions that begin with why, but questions that begin with how, what or when. As soon as a creationist starts asking *why*, they've lost. Because if they had something to gain by asking how, what or when, they would. Asking *why* like the creationists do is simply another manifestation of their nihilism, and a retreat to first causes as you point out. Why is there existence at all? and so there is little point to asking why.

eric said:

Robin said: I believe the argument they (atheistoclast, fittest meme, IBIG, etc) are attempting to make is that [i]since[/i] evolution violates SLoT the theory of evolution must be wrong. The problem with the argument is that of course evolution does not violate SLoT in any way.

That's one problem. There's another equally bad problem with that argument: if some observed process did violate 2LOT in a repeatable, confirmable way, we would modify the 2LOT, not pretend the process doesn't happen. IOW even if they were right, their argument would not do what they want it to do.

Mike Elzinga said: This video by Thomas Kindell follows fairly closely what Henry Morris taught about thermodynamics and what Morris also did to demonize and mischaracterize scientists. Kindell was a protégé of Morris. So was Ken Ham. The graph that shows the “conflict between evolution and the second law (it comes a bit later in this clip) comes right out of Henry Morris’s book What is Creation Science? that he wrote with Gary Parker in 1982. But the quote I gave from Morris comes from 1973. Morris and Gish were already clubbing biology teachers with this in the early 1970s.

terenzioiltroll said: Well, thank you for pointing me that video.

Mike Elzinga said: These churches are not congregations of mutually encouraging support groups; they are psychological terrorist organizations that destroy people’s will from the inside. And people like Ken Ham know it starts with the children at a very young age.

Paul Burnett said: Where is Children's Protective Services when you really need them? Fundagelicals engage in the most abominable psychological child abuse, and someday they will hopefully be held accountable. (Right, Raven?)

The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

Happy Thanksgiving to all here from the USA.

IBelieveInGod said: The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

IBelieveInGod said: Happy Thanksgiving to all here from the USA.

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

No, it's not. All of the processes occurring in a living organism follow the second law. All of the processes occurring after death follow the second law. An organism remains an open system after death because matter and energy can still flow in to/out of the organism -- there is still no barrier prohibiting those flows. Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

IBelieveInGod said: Happy Thanksgiving to all here from the USA.

Mike Elzinga said: ...not one ID/creationist ever pays attention to what a scientist/instructor is saying. Instead he is simply composing his next bratty gotcha.

And from far abroad, to all the citizens of the United States of America:

May your great nation enjoy peace and prosperity, always returning to the great truths that you have led the world to recognise: that all are created equal; that liberty and justice are for all; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not vanish from the Earth.

May the United States be blessed by its people, and by all people everywhere, and may we all give thanks.

Dave Luckett said: And from far abroad, to all the citizens of the United States of America: May your great nation enjoy peace and prosperity, always returning to the great truths that you have led the world to recognise: that all are created equal; that liberty and justice are for all; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not vanish from the Earth. May the United States be blessed by its people, and by all people everywhere, and may we all give thanks.

Good grief, a Murray River steamer. Thirty feet high and can be floated off a mudbank with an eyedropper. Amazing craft. Crooked Mick piloted one four miles off the Darling on a heavy dew, but he had to wait for it to rain before he could load the wool clip.

I'm sorry, were we discussing the 2LOT?

eric said:

Robin said: I believe the argument they (atheistoclast, fittest meme, IBIG, etc) are attempting to make is that [i]since[/i] evolution violates SLoT the theory of evolution must be wrong. The problem with the argument is that of course evolution does not violate SLoT in any way.

That's one problem. There's another equally bad problem with that argument: if some observed process did violate 2LOT in a repeatable, confirmable way, we would modify the 2LOT, not pretend the process doesn't happen. IOW even if they were right, their argument would not do what they want it to do.

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

No, it's not. All of the processes occurring in a living organism follow the second law. All of the processes occurring after death follow the second law. An organism remains an open system after death because matter and energy can still flow in to/out of the organism -- there is still no barrier prohibiting those flows. Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

No, it's not. All of the processes occurring in a living organism follow the second law. All of the processes occurring after death follow the second law. An organism remains an open system after death because matter and energy can still flow in to/out of the organism -- there is still no barrier prohibiting those flows. Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

IBelieveInGod said: So after death the body is still able to process matter into energy, so that the brain can make use if said energy and continue to function? Did you not read the post with comprehension. This post was about life and death or did you miss that part? My reasoning for the body ceasing to be an open system is because after death it can no longer process and make use of energy to function, or did you miss that part. And is it also your contention that after death the body doesn't fall into disorder?

IBelieveInGod said: So after death the body is still able to process matter into energy, so that the brain can make use if said energy and continue to function

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: So after death the body is still able to process matter into energy, so that the brain can make use if said energy and continue to function

Metabolic action ceases after a relatively short period, but SWT is absolutely right (and you are absolutely wrong) that the body remains an open system. Its still exchanging matter and energy with its surroundings. When you become food for worms, they eat you. That's an exchange of matter with the environment, see?

This persistence in the ID/creationist misconceptions about the second law of thermodynamics is the primary reason why ID/creationist “science” will never go anywhere. The ID/creationists have never figured this out despite over 40 years of feedback from scientists that ID/creationist notions about the real universe are wrong.

But this was Morris’s intent; fabricate two fundamental misconceptions about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. It has been one of the most robust pseudo-science memes ever invented; and it is marketed with the fanaticism of sectarians who believe their sectarian dogma must displace everything else.

The troll has no clue; and the troll wants no clue.

IBIG said: "Let me add that I find it absolutely amazing..."

" ...that you don't understand that after death the body falls into disorder and decay."

"Ask any forensic pathologist and he/she will tell you that the body does fall into disorder and decay, and very quickly.

prongs said: terenzioiltroll is ABSOLUTELY correct to say that a cooling corpse is indeed decreasing its entropy. But if it's decaying = disordering = entropy increasing, how can it be decreasing its entropy at the same time? Why it's a miracle of course! (i.e. it requires divine intervention) Science is just wrong.

IBelieveInGod said:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

No, it's not. All of the processes occurring in a living organism follow the second law. All of the processes occurring after death follow the second law. An organism remains an open system after death because matter and energy can still flow in to/out of the organism -- there is still no barrier prohibiting those flows. Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

So after death the body is still able to process matter into energy, so that the brain can make use if said energy and continue to function?

Did you not read the post with comprehension. This post was about life and death or did you miss that part? My reasoning for the body ceasing to be an open system is because after death it can no longer process and make use of energy to function, or did you miss that part.

And is it also your contention that after death the body doesn't fall into disorder?

IBelieveInGod said:

SWT said: Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

[IBIG not responding]

Mike Elzinga said: As I indicated above, this troll has less intelligence than a mushroom.

Mike Elzinga said: But this was Morris’s intent; fabricate two fundamental misconceptions about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. It has been one of the most robust pseudo-science memes ever invented; and it is marketed with the fanaticism of sectarians who believe their sectarian dogma must displace everything else.

The troll has no clue; and the troll wants no clue.

http://www.redleafresearch.co.uk/?p=373

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.redleafresearch.co.uk/?p=373

The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it’s sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

terenzioiltroll said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.redleafresearch.co.uk/?p=373

May I kindly ask why are you evading direct questions? You stated:

The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it’s sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

The entropy of a dead body decreases. At least for a certain amount of time. Do you agree with this point? If not, why? Could you point out anything wrong in my counterexample? By the way, could you just write down the second law of thermodynamics in analytical form? Just to be sure we are all talking about the same thing.

terenzioiltroll said:

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.redleafresearch.co.uk/?p=373

May I kindly ask why are you evading direct questions? You stated:

The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it’s sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

The entropy of a dead body decreases. At least for a certain amount of time. Do you agree with this point? If not, why? Could you point out anything wrong in my counterexample? By the way, could you just write down the second law of thermodynamics in analytical form? Just to be sure we are all talking about the same thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3817040

Joe Felsenstein said:

Mike Elzinga said: But this was Morris’s intent; fabricate two fundamental misconceptions about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. It has been one of the most robust pseudo-science memes ever invented; and it is marketed with the fanaticism of sectarians who believe their sectarian dogma must displace everything else.

I am not so sure that Morris intended to deliberately lie. Ken Miller tells of the time he debated Henry Morris, and then afterwards the two of them went to dinner together. Miller sincerely congratulated Morris on the way he had been able to stick to his story in spite of knowing that it was false. He was astonished to see that Morris was confused by this, and Miller then realized that Morris in fact honestly believed everything he was saying. I think that the many people here who accuse creationists of "lying" are not taking into account the human capability for self-deception. In many of these cases the troll honestly believes he is telling the truth, even when we can see clearly that his argument makes no sense. They are far gone into a world-view that requires that all their arguments are The Truth. Which is not to say that all of the high-profile creationist debaters are being honest about their arguments.

terenzioiltroll said:

Mike Elzinga said: As I indicated above, this troll has less intelligence than a mushroom.

Is with a tad of discomfort that I must notice how you are negatively biased against us trolls...

Mike Elzinga said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Mike Elzinga said: As I indicated above, this troll has less intelligence than a mushroom.

Is with a tad of discomfort that I must notice how you are negatively biased against us trolls...

Stick around and watch.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

Dave Luckett said: The word "why" is one of the peskiest words in the English language, because it has two meanings (at least) and those meanings are intertwined in an almost unconscious way. The first meaning is "What causes?" This is meant when, for instance, watching an apple fall. "What causes this apple to fall?" can be asked as "Why does this apple fall?", and the answer can be, and is, a natural, blind, automatically acting force. The other meaning is "With what intent?" This is meant when you ask someone "Why did you do that?" and expecting a reply that covers reason, motivation, intent, expected outcome - things intrinsic to intelligence.

Eric Finn said:

Dave Luckett said: The word "why" is one of the peskiest words in the English language, because it has two meanings (at least) and those meanings are intertwined in an almost unconscious way. The first meaning is "What causes?" This is meant when, for instance, watching an apple fall. "What causes this apple to fall?" can be asked as "Why does this apple fall?", and the answer can be, and is, a natural, blind, automatically acting force. The other meaning is "With what intent?" This is meant when you ask someone "Why did you do that?" and expecting a reply that covers reason, motivation, intent, expected outcome - things intrinsic to intelligence.

I can assure you that this vagueness is present in at least one language that is outside the Indo-European language family. It is not a property of English language only. Earlier fittest meme explained the concept of information. According to him, “Maybe Eric Finn and others have a hard time with information because it requires recognizing the ubiquitous reality of the metaphysical concept of “purpose” in all of life”. I think it was well said and covers also the studies by Dembski. The role of information in the theory of thermodynamics is also clarified, even though it might not be very helpful neither from the theoretical nor practical point of view. Shannon and Kolmogorov should be kept out of this approach to the concept of information. The concept of entropy, as formulated in physics, is fine even without information.

Steve P. said: Eric Finn, It's not as cut and dry as you or others on this site arguing in the negative may like it to be. There just may be somewhat of a microtrend perhaps being established in favor of information. 'A Farewell to Entropy: Statistical Dynamics based on Information' by Ariel Ben-Naim, 2008 is one such text that argues for replacing the notion of entropy with 'missing information'. As well, it appears there is also a trend in challenging the validity of the 2nd law as inviolable. 'Challenges to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' by Vladislav Capek and Daniel P. Sheenan, 2005. Note these texts can be downloaded from the net. "The trend is your friend."

It would behoove Mr. Elzinga to accept the fact that his own dogma doesn't hunt as well as it used to.

And if he would calm down just a tad and reread my last post, he would see that there is no insult here but a suggestion, a reminder,

a.... post.

Have a good day, sir.

What Felsenstein seems to be failing to tell readers is that Sewell is not saying that weeds are impossible but that neo-darwinism has failed to show that it can do what ID claims cannot be done without intelligence.

For we know that entropy is the bane of a developing biological system. For every step it takes in the direction of complexity, it has to constrain / obstruct / violate entropy. It has to say no to increasing entropy. It takes intelligence, foresight to be able to grapple with the effects of entropy.

That our bodies have a constant temperature testifies to the fact a biological system cannot tolerate changes in entropy. Otherwise, kidneys would not function, blood would not flow, skin would shrivel.

Water and other natural phenomena succumb to the effects of entropy which results in a change of form; i.e. ice to water to vapor and back again.

However, biological systems cannot tolerate a change of form. They need to block the tendency of entropy to go from hot to cold, which would wreak havoc on its systems, sub-systems.

So they solve the problem by seeking out heat/energy from the sun, nutrients and other organisms to maintain a certain constant temperature that allows its systems/subsystems to avoid the effects of entropy. A constant temperature is not an emergence effect of the system but a prerequisite.

Again, life is all about blocking entropy. That's what makes it different from non-life.

IBelieveInGod said: Are you saying that a dead body becomes more ordered, at least for a certain amount of time? Explain how it could become more ordered?

Steve P. said: It would behoove Mr. Elzinga to accept the fact that his own dogma doesn't hunt as well as it used to. And if he would calm down just a tad and reread my last post, he would see that there is no insult here but a suggestion, a reminder, a.... post. Have a good day, sir.

Mike Elzinga said:

Mike Elzinga said:

terenzioiltroll said:

Mike Elzinga said: As I indicated above, this troll has less intelligence than a mushroom.

Is with a tad of discomfort that I must notice how you are negatively biased against us trolls...

Stick around and watch.

To be a little more specific, watch what happens when these answers get posted for at least the third time.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

This is a simple example of a thermodynamic system comprised of constituents that can have only two-states (often referred to as a two-state system). Each atom can be either in its ground state or in a single excited state. In calculating the entropy, we are going to take the natural logarithm of the number of available microstates and then multiply that number by Boltzmann’s constant k_B. So we are interested in the number of ways that we can have p atoms out of n atoms be in an excited state with the rest in the ground state. But this is simply the number of combinations of n things taken p at a time; or _nC_p = n!/((n - p)!p!). For the ground state, there is only one way to have all atoms in the ground state. The natural log of 1 is 0. So the entropy is zero in the ground state with no energy. For 4 atoms in the excited state, ₁₆C₄ = 1,820 Then ln(1820) = 7.51 For 8 atoms in the excited state, ₁₆C₈ = 12,870 Then ln(12870) = 9.46 For 12 atoms in the excited state, ₁₆C₁₂ = 1,820 Then ln(1820) = 7.51 And, finally, there is only one way to have all 16 atoms in the excited state, so ln(1) = 0. Thus the entropy is zero again with the system having a total energy of 16 units. If you want all steps from 0 to 16, they are: {1, 16, 120, 560, 1820, 4368, 8008, 11440, 12870, 11440, 8008, 4368, 1820, 560, 120, 16, 1}. Their logarithms are: {0, 2.77, 4.79, 6.33, 7.51, 8.38, 8.99, 9.34, 9.46, 9.34, 8.99, 8.38, 7.51, 6.33, 4.79, 2.77, 0}. We can then multiply each of these logarithms by Boltzmann’s constant, which depends on what units we are working in (joules per Kelvin, eV per Kelvin, or whatever we have adopted for our energy units and temperature scale). For purposes of illustration, we can just set Boltzmann’s constant equal to 1, so the above list is the entropy of each macro-state. To compare temperatures, we need to know that 1/T = rate of change of entropy with respect to the corresponding change in total energy. For purposes of illustration, we can take each step in energy as one unit. Then the changes in entropy for each step become {2.77, 2.01, 1.54, 1.18, .88, .61, .36, .12, -.12, -.36, -.61, -.88, -1.18, -1.54, -2.01, -2.77}, which are the reciprocal temperatures. Then the temperatures are (recall that we have set Boltzman’s constant to 1 for illustration only): {0.36, 0.50, 0.65, 0.85, 1.14, 1.65, 2.80, 8.49, -8.49, -2.80, -1.65, -1.14, -0.85, -.065, -0.50, -0.36} In the beginning stages, the entropy is increasing with the added energy. So the reciprocal temperature is positive. But as number of atoms in the excited state approaches 8 from below, that rate of increase of entropy is approaching zero. This means that 1/T is approaching zero; which means that T is getting larger and larger. As the number of atoms in the excited state goes beyond 8, the entropy is now decreasing with increasing total energy. So just beyond 8 atoms in the excited state, 1/T is near zero but negative. This means that T is large and negative. As the number of atoms in the excited state keeps increasing beyond 8, the entropy now decreases even faster with increasing total energy. Therefore 1/T remains negative, and T remains negative but becomes less and less negative. So, extrapolating to systems containing on the order of 10²³ such atoms, we enter the realm where the energy steps become very small; almost continuous. The number of microstates at each energy step is enormous and changing more rapidly than an exponential. The temperature starts out at a minimum positive value, increases to positive infinity as half of the atoms go into the excited state. But immediately beyond the halfway point, the temperature jumps to negative infinity and then approaches smaller negative values as the number of excited atoms approaches the total number of atoms. What does one take away from this little exercise with two-state systems? (1) Entropy has nothing to do with spatial order. Those atoms could be embedded randomly within any matrix of other atoms that don’t respond to the energy input, or they could be lined up in a definite pattern. It makes no difference to the entropy. (2) Entropy can increase from zero with energy input, go through a maximum, and then decrease again to zero as total energy continues to increase. And as energy is drained from the system, entropy can increase from zero, go through a maximum, and then decrease back to zero. So you can’t conclude that bathing things in energy “makes things worse.” (3) Entropy has nothing to do with everything coming all apart and “falling into decay” or into “simpler forms.” (4) The entropy can change within any system only if the individual constituents of the system can exchange energy with each other. If they could not, then the system would stay in whatever microstate it is in, and there would be only one microstate (entropy zero). But such a system cannot “communicate” with the outside world either. And we wouldn’t know what particular microstate it is in (chew on that one, “information wags”). Such a system would be isolated, but the entropy could still be stuck at zero. It is difficult to construct such a system, but they can be closely approximated in the lab. We would not be able to do this exercise of n things taken p at a time if it were not possible to have various combinations of atoms containing the same total energy; i.e., if the atoms couldn’t exchange energy with each other. (5) This system is representative of the “population inversions” necessary to produce lasing in a gas laser (such as a HeNe or a CO₂ laser for example). It can also apply to “spin systems” of atoms with a nuclear magnetic dipole moment immersed in a magnetic field. (6) ID/creationists know absolutely nothing about entropy. (7) None of the ID/creationists understand the concept of temperature, whether it be the empirical temperature or the proper statistical mechanics notions behind temperature. (8) None of the ID/creationists understand the connections between temperature and entropy or why the entropy of a system has nothing to do with its spatial configuration or “order/disorder”. (9) None of the ID/creationists understand that entropy has nothing to do with the place an organism occupies on an evolutionary scale. For example, no ID/creationist understands that a juvenile animal, with half the dimensions of an adult, contains one-eighth the volume and, therefore one-eighth the entropy. By ID/creationist “logic,” adult animals “have less information” or are “less advanced” then are their juvenile offspring. (10) In particular, Sewell’s “paper” is meaningless; he doesn’t know how to calculate entropy or what it is. And we know exactly why he would never consider submitting his “paper” to Physical Review Letters; choosing instead to ferret out an overworked editor with an understaffed set of reviewers working for a small mathematical journal.

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

Steve P. said: Eric Finn, It's not as cut and dry as you or others on this site arguing in the negative may like it to be. There just may be somewhat of a microtrend perhaps being established in favor of information. 'A Farewell to Entropy: Statistical Dynamics based on Information' by Ariel Ben-Naim, 2008 is one such text that argues for replacing the notion of entropy with 'missing information'. As well, it appears there is also a trend in challenging the validity of the 2nd law as inviolable. 'Challenges to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' by Vladislav Capek and Daniel P. Sheenan, 2005. Note these texts can be downloaded from the net. "The trend is your friend."

I would suggest that this is no place for a discussion on the truth or otherwise of quotes from Scripture. May I suggest that Henry's self-refuting citation, and this, be banished to the BW?

Steve P. said: What Felsenstein seems to be failing to tell readers is that Sewell is not saying that weeds are impossible but that neo-darwinism has failed to show that it can do what ID claims cannot be done without intelligence.

However, biological systems cannot tolerate a change of form. They need to block the tendency of entropy to go from hot to cold, which would wreak havoc on its systems, sub-systems. So they solve the problem by seeking out heat/energy from the sun, nutrients and other organisms to maintain a certain constant temperature that allows its systems/subsystems to avoid the effects of entropy.

Dave Luckett said: I would suggest that this is no place for a discussion on the truth or otherwise of quotes from Scripture. May I suggest that Henry's self-refuting citation, and this, be banished to the BW?

Eric Finn said: I found a slide show by Daniel P. Sheenan (2010) [1]. ... The slides are very nicely built. Of course, they are not fully understandable without further explanation.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Dave Luckett said: I would suggest that this is no place for a discussion on the truth or otherwise of quotes from Scripture. May I suggest that Henry's self-refuting citation, and this, be banished to the BW?

That is a cogent suggestion. I have moved Henry's cut-and-paste pro/anti God arguing there, also the off-topic (and insulting) comment that it was responding too. I tolerated Henry's previous cut-and-paste George Washington proclamation because of the U.S, holiday as I had tolerated some others wishing people well on the holiday -- but now it looks like this was a mistake. No more, folks.

One last thought before I hit the road ...

Steve P. appears to be arguing that there might be exceptions to the second law. He doesn't seem to realize that if the second law is violable, that completely and irretrievably blows the ID "information" argument out of the water along with all the other "second law" arguments. It's an "interesting" rhetorical choice ...

Joe Felsenstein said:

Steve P. said: What Felsenstein seems to be failing to tell readers is that Sewell is not saying that weeds are impossible but that neo-darwinism has failed to show that it can do what ID claims cannot be done without intelligence.

No, I am not "failing to tell" readers this -- it is just plain not what Sewell is saying. Anyone doubting this is welcome to go to Sewell, and will see this for themselves. Sewell does not mention the case of weeds growing (or rather, being unable to grow), but it is a clear implication of his argument. I suppose the charitable interpretation of Steve P.'s statements is that he hasn't read Sewell's main argument.

However, biological systems cannot tolerate a change of form. They need to block the tendency of entropy to go from hot to cold, which would wreak havoc on its systems, sub-systems. So they solve the problem by seeking out heat/energy from the sun, nutrients and other organisms to maintain a certain constant temperature that allows its systems/subsystems to avoid the effects of entropy.

Aside from details of the terminology, what Steve P. has just shown us is that he disagrees with Granville Sewell, as he sees that the input of solar energy enables biological systems to do things like grow. For example, weeds.

IBIG said to terenzioiltroll: "After someone dies, entropy increases in their bodies, as their bodies become less ordered, they decay and decompose. " "Are you saying that a dead body becomes more ordered, at least for a certain amount of time? Explain how it could become more ordered?"

prongs said:

IBIG said to terenzioiltroll: "After someone dies, entropy increases in their bodies, as their bodies become less ordered, they decay and decompose. " "Are you saying that a dead body becomes more ordered, at least for a certain amount of time? Explain how it could become more ordered?"

You continue to equate order with decreasing entropy and disorder with increasing entropy, after having been repeatedly corrected. Mike presented a detailed example demonstrating that entropy is independent of 'order'. Why do you insist on continuing your mistaken concept?

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

I suspect you're correct in your assessment.

Entropy is a well-defined scientic concept with a precise scientific definition (two actually).

The Second Law is a well-defined scientific concept built upon Entropy, and the observation of the world around us.

IBIG seeks to hijack the concept of entropy (he's not adept with science and doesn't think scientifically or mathematically), give it a new definition based upon common-use words like 'disorder', 'decay', 'death', and then turn it around to 'prove' evolution can't have happened, and that 'life' requires divine essence. (Can this be how they argue doctrine in his church?)

Is this not dishonest?

IBIG told us he never lies, intentionally, on PT.

Is this not IBIG lying?

Steve P. said: It takes intelligence, foresight to be able to grapple with the effects of entropy.

Eric Finn said: p-n Diode I got the impression that an ordinary diode is presented as an example of violation of the second law of thermodynamics. There is and excess of electrons on one side of the p-n boarder and an excess of holes on the other side. The measurable effect is that a voltage will build across the boarder.

It takes intelligence, foresight to be able to grapple with the effects of entropy

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

Steve P. said: It would behoove Mr. Elzinga to accept the fact that his own dogma doesn't hunt as well as it used to. And if he would calm down just a tad and reread my last post, he would see that there is no insult here but a suggestion, a reminder, a.... post. Have a good day, sir.

Steve P. said: What Felsenstein seems to be failing to tell readers is that Sewell is not saying that weeds are impossible but that neo-darwinism has failed to show that it can do what ID claims cannot be done without intelligence. For we know that entropy is the bane of a developing biological system. For every step it takes in the direction of complexity, it has to constrain / obstruct / violate entropy. It has to say no to increasing entropy. It takes intelligence, foresight to be able to grapple with the effects of entropy. That our bodies have a constant temperature testifies to the fact a biological system cannot tolerate changes in entropy. Otherwise, kidneys would not function, blood would not flow, skin would shrivel. Water and other natural phenomena succumb to the effects of entropy which results in a change of form; i.e. ice to water to vapor and back again. However, biological systems cannot tolerate a change of form. They need to block the tendency of entropy to go from hot to cold, which would wreak havoc on its systems, sub-systems. So they solve the problem by seeking out heat/energy from the sun, nutrients and other organisms to maintain a certain constant temperature that allows its systems/subsystems to avoid the effects of entropy. A constant temperature is not an emergence effect of the system but a prerequisite. Again, life is all about blocking entropy. That's what makes it different from non-life.

Henry said: Is all of that covered in Basic Physics [Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1968], by Kenneth Ford?

fnxtr said:

Eric Finn said: p-n Diode I got the impression that an ordinary diode is presented as an example of violation of the second law of thermodynamics. There is and excess of electrons on one side of the p-n boarder and an excess of holes on the other side. The measurable effect is that a voltage will build across the boarder.

O for Volta's sake. That's like saying rubbing a glass rod with a cloth violates 2LOT. The deliberate imperfections (doping) in the crystal lattice don't magically generate electrons and holes, they just tend to (figuratively) squeeze the normal electrons of the doping material out of the lattice, or leave a gap where an electron could sit. The depletion region is the area where said gaps and squeezed electrons are close enough to each other for rearrangement to occur, creating a non-conductive region. It takes approximately 700mV of external applied voltage to overcome this non-conductive region and make it conductive (in a silicon diode), hence "semi-conductor". There's no "voltage" there. Take a voltmeter and place on opposite poles of an isolated diode, you won't get a .7V reading.

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

fnxtr said: That's like saying rubbing a glass rod with a cloth violates 2LOT.

IBelieveInGod said: According to your logic, one could say that the machinery in one's car is just metals, rubber, etc, no there is more to it then that, there are finely machined parts in one's car that allow it to function.

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):) According to your logic, one could say that the machinery in one's car is just metals, rubber, etc, no there is more to it then that, there are finely machined parts in one's car that allow it to function. It's the same with even simple plant life, there are many parts that are necessary for the plant to be able to make use of the sun's energy and grow and multiply.

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):)

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):)

All the evidence we have to date indicates that's pretty much true. It takes millions of years, and probably wouldn't happen in today's environment, but yeah ... toss some known-to-exist chemicals into a known-to-exist ancient environment with the Sun as an energy source, and presto!

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):)

All the evidence we have to date indicates that's pretty much true. It takes millions of years, and probably wouldn't happen in today's environment, but yeah ... toss some known-to-exist chemicals into a known-to-exist ancient environment with the Sun as an energy source, and presto!

unkle.hank said:

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):) According to your logic, one could say that the machinery in one's car is just metals, rubber, etc, no there is more to it then that, there are finely machined parts in one's car that allow it to function. It's the same with even simple plant life, there are many parts that are necessary for the plant to be able to make use of the sun's energy and grow and multiply.

Ah, so you've managed to switch the discussion about thermodynamics back around to "too complex for little ol' me-therefore-needs intelligent design-therefore-Jesus ridin' dinosaurs! Vote Palin!" via chemistry. Well played. I'll check off the "off-topic" and "tornady in a junkyard" squares on my Jumbo Creationist Bingo card (I've already filled two reading your word-salads, I'm going for a hat-trick). Not every topic is an opportunity to smugly smirk about how stuff you can't explain needs God to explain it.

Eric: I was taking issue with the "violates the 2nd law" claim, not that you would agree with it. :-)

Kevin B: Well, exactly. Apparently God is an electron.

unkle.hank said:

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):) According to your logic, one could say that the machinery in one's car is just metals, rubber, etc, no there is more to it then that, there are finely machined parts in one's car that allow it to function. It's the same with even simple plant life, there are many parts that are necessary for the plant to be able to make use of the sun's energy and grow and multiply.

Ah, so you've managed to switch the discussion about thermodynamics back around to "too complex for little ol' me-therefore-needs intelligent design-therefore-Jesus ridin' dinosaurs! Vote Palin!" via chemistry. Well played. I'll check off the "off-topic" and "tornady in a junkyard" squares on my Jumbo Creationist Bingo card (I've already filled two reading your word-salads, I'm going for a hat-trick). Not every topic is an opportunity to smugly smirk about how stuff you can't explain needs God to explain it.

Joe Felsenstein said: Ken Miller tells of the time he debated Henry Morris, and then afterwards the two of them went to dinner together. Miller sincerely congratulated Morris on the way he had been able to stick to his story in spite of knowing that it was false. He was astonished to see that Morris was confused by this, and Miller then realized that Morris in fact honestly believed everything he was saying.

IBelieveInGod said:

unkle.hank said:

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):) According to your logic, one could say that the machinery in one's car is just metals, rubber, etc, no there is more to it then that, there are finely machined parts in one's car that allow it to function. It's the same with even simple plant life, there are many parts that are necessary for the plant to be able to make use of the sun's energy and grow and multiply.

Ah, so you've managed to switch the discussion about thermodynamics back around to "too complex for little ol' me-therefore-needs intelligent design-therefore-Jesus ridin' dinosaurs! Vote Palin!" via chemistry. Well played. I'll check off the "off-topic" and "tornady in a junkyard" squares on my Jumbo Creationist Bingo card (I've already filled two reading your word-salads, I'm going for a hat-trick). Not every topic is an opportunity to smugly smirk about how stuff you can't explain needs God to explain it.

Truth is life is extremely complex, that is a fact, even the most simple of organisms are now known to be extremely complex. Sorry, if that bothers you.

IBelieveInGod said: Truth is life is extremely complex, that is a fact, even the most simple of organisms are now known to be extremely complex. Sorry, if that bothers you.

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said:

jon.r.fleming said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe it is true that the Sun's energy enables biologic life to grow, but that wouldn't be possible if said biologic life didn't have the necessary functioning machinery to actually make use of the sun's energy to grow and multiply, i.e. the sun's energy will not make a dead tree grow or multiply.

The necessary machinery is called chemistry.

Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):)

All the evidence we have to date indicates that's pretty much true. It takes millions of years, and probably wouldn't happen in today's environment, but yeah ... toss some known-to-exist chemicals into a known-to-exist ancient environment with the Sun as an energy source, and presto!

It shouldn't take a million years for scientists.

IBelieveInGod said: Truth is life is extremely complex, that is a fact, even the most simple of organisms are now known to be extremely complex. Sorry, if that bothers you.

The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the "law of maximum entropy production" or "MEP" and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws.

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: Truth is life is extremely complex, that is a fact, even the most simple of organisms are now known to be extremely complex. Sorry, if that bothers you.

Then explain to us how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits all life forms from evolving without the direct magical intervention of God, and explain to us how and why saying "GODDIDIT" is supposed to be magically more scientific than actual science.

Eric Finn said:

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: Truth is life is extremely complex, that is a fact, even the most simple of organisms are now known to be extremely complex. Sorry, if that bothers you.

Then explain to us how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits all life forms from evolving without the direct magical intervention of God, and explain to us how and why saying "GODDIDIT" is supposed to be magically more scientific than actual science.

These arguments do not deal with the consistency of the theory of thermodynamics, or the consistency of theory of biological evolution. Both of these theories are totally unable to explain purpose, and that is the problem. An even bigger problem is that both of these theories appear to indicate that there is no purpose in the sense of intent to achieve something. Purpose is needed, because life without purpose is purposeless.

Life and love are life and love, a bunch of violets is a bunch of violets, and to drag in the idea of a point is to ruin everything. Live and let live, love and let love, flower and fade, and follow the natural curve, which flows on, pointless. -- D. H. Lawrence

Eric Finn said: Purpose is needed, because life without purpose is purposeless.

Both of these theories are totally unable to explain purpose, and that is the problem.

An even bigger problem is that both of these theories appear to indicate that there is no purpose in the sense of intent to achieve something.

Purpose is needed, because life without purpose is purposeless.

We're wandering far from the topic -- a lot of discussion of time, purpose etc. Either get back to the topic or I will close this whole discussion down.

Mike Elzinga said:

Eric Finn said: Purpose is needed, because life without purpose is purposeless.

And the universe without the second law of thermodynamics would be lifeless.

Eric Finn said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Eric Finn said: Purpose is needed, because life without purpose is purposeless.

And the universe without the second law of thermodynamics would be lifeless.

Yes, it would be lifeless. May I take this opportunity to discuss one notion that you have repeated several times. It is “Matter interacts with matter”. It took me some time to realise that this statement is a fundamental fact, not merely an irritating repetition. The second law of thermodynamics is a must, if particles interact with each other. On the other hand, if particles are grouped randomly (tornado in a junkyard), then the second law of thermodynamics is impotent.

Joe Felsenstein said: We're wandering far from the topic -- a lot of discussion of time, purpose etc. Either get back to the topic or I will close this whole discussion down.

harold said:

An even bigger problem is that both of these theories appear to indicate that there is no purpose in the sense of intent to achieve something.

They don't imply anything of the sort; unlike you, I feel plenty of purpose and intent. Technically, they don't even imply that you aren't the favorite of some absurd authoritarian god that is actually a projection of your own bitterness, narcissism, and sadism (just speaking hypothetically here). They don't deal with that. Now, if you insist on creating such a god AND insisting that it created the earth 6000 years ago or that life doesn't share common ancestry, well then, your self-serving mythology is proven false by empirical reality. However, plenty of people have religions that don't butt heads with scientific reality.

Sorry to have missed moving this to the Bathrioom Wall. I tolerated Henry's cut-and-paste long post because of the U.S. holiday but this response gets us squarely into pro/anti God debating, and insults too. Off to the Wall. And no more cut-and-paste long posts for you either, Henry.

Granville Sewell wrote on Uncommon Descent:

”Evolution is a movie running backward, that is what makes it so different from other phenomena in our universe, and why it demands a very different sort of explanation.”

”The “compensation” argument, used by a fictional character above to argue that because the Earth is an open system, tornados constructing houses and cars out of rubble here would not violate the second law, and widely used by very real characters to argue that the most spectacular increase in order ever seen anywhere does not violate it, was the target of my Applied Mathematics Letters article “A Second Look at the Second Law”.”

Joe Felsenstein answered:

”Is Sewell’s argument unanswerable? No, because long before I made those posts, Sewell’s argument had been thoroughly demolished by Jason Rosenhouse and by Mark Perakh. Game over, even if you don’t know that plants can grow.”

Sewell appears to hold an idea that the theory of biological evolution and thermodynamics are in disagreement. Both Rosenhouse and Perakh give ample reasons to think otherwise.

Entropy is not among the easiest concepts in physics. Mike Elzinga provided us with an example of a two-level system. It is justified to ask, if this example is only a thought experiment, or can we find that kind of systems in the nature. The answer is that, indeed, we can find these systems in the nature, and they have been studied for a long time.

Information is a concept that pops up regularly while discussing the concept of entropy. I think the pseudonym “fittest meme” gave us an accurate definition by saying information=purpose.

It is very difficult to argue about the purpose of the universe on scientific grounds. This may be one of the reasons, why this sort of conversation is still going on.

Next time I hear the word “information”, I will immediately check, if the intended meaning is “purpose”. I am fairly confident that I can deal with Shannon and Kolmogorov, but less sure about dealing with “purpose”, not to speak of “the purpose”.

Eric Finn said: ... Information is a concept that pops up regularly while discussing the concept of entropy. I think the pseudonym “fittest meme” gave us an accurate definition by saying information=purpose. It is very difficult to argue about the purpose of the universe on scientific grounds. This may be one of the reasons, why this sort of conversation is still going on. Next time I hear the word “information”, I will immediately check, if the intended meaning is “purpose”. I am fairly confident that I can deal with Shannon and Kolmogorov, but less sure about dealing with “purpose”, not to speak of “the purpose”.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Eric Finn said: ... Information is a concept that pops up regularly while discussing the concept of entropy. I think the pseudonym “fittest meme” gave us an accurate definition by saying information=purpose. It is very difficult to argue about the purpose of the universe on scientific grounds. This may be one of the reasons, why this sort of conversation is still going on. Next time I hear the word “information”, I will immediately check, if the intended meaning is “purpose”. I am fairly confident that I can deal with Shannon and Kolmogorov, but less sure about dealing with “purpose”, not to speak of “the purpose”.

In any case, while issues of "purpose" of the Universe are interesting, our purpose here (sorry, I could not resist that) is to ask whether entropy, or information, implies that evolution cannot work. So far, we have no reason, in spite of Sewell's arguments, to think it can't work.

I may have been wrong in saying that science implies that there is no purpose. Even so, I insist that science does not imply any purpose.

Information is a concept that pops up regularly while discussing the concept of entropy. I think the pseudonym “fittest meme” gave us an accurate definition by saying information=purpose.

Eric Finn -

By the way, sorry, although I think my tone is well within the bounds of civil, it's hard for me to tell whether you are endorsing or merely mentioning certain creationist claims.

If it's the latter and I implied the former, apologies.

harold said: Eric Finn - By the way, sorry, although I think my tone is well within the bounds of civil, it's hard for me to tell whether you are endorsing or merely mentioning certain creationist claims. If it's the latter and I implied the former, apologies.

Joe Felsenstein said: So far, we have no reason, in spite of Sewell's arguments, to think (evolution) can't work.

Pardon, the two reasons Sewell's arguments claiming that evolution can't occur don't work, that is.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Mike Elzinga said: But this was Morris’s intent; fabricate two fundamental misconceptions about evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. It has been one of the most robust pseudo-science memes ever invented; and it is marketed with the fanaticism of sectarians who believe their sectarian dogma must displace everything else.

I am not so sure that Morris intended to deliberately lie. Ken Miller tells of the time he debated Henry Morris, and then afterwards the two of them went to dinner together. Miller sincerely congratulated Morris on the way he had been able to stick to his story in spite of knowing that it was false. He was astonished to see that Morris was confused by this, and Miller then realized that Morris in fact honestly believed everything he was saying. I think that the many people here who accuse creationists of "lying" are not taking into account the human capability for self-deception. In many of these cases the troll honestly believes he is telling the truth, even when we can see clearly that his argument makes no sense. They are far gone into a world-view that requires that all their arguments are The Truth. Which is not to say that all of the high-profile creationist debaters are being honest about their arguments.

The troll has no clue; and the troll wants no clue.

That is quite true even when the troll honestly believes what he is saying.

Is the earth truly an open system considering that it exchanges very little matter with the rest of the universe? I'm not saying that earth is not an open system, just throwing that out for discussion.

Now let me ask this: If you place a rat with cheese in a perfectly sealed and insulated box, would it be a closed system or an open system?

IBelieveInGod said: Oh then you can just mix all of the necessary chemistry together and create life:):):)

IBelieveInGod said: Is the earth truly an open system considering that it exchanges very little matter with the rest of the universe?

Paul Burnett said:

IBelieveInGod said: Is the earth truly an open system considering that it exchanges very little matter with the rest of the universe?

We're talking energy here, Biggie, not matter...

IBelieveInGod said:

Paul Burnett said:

IBelieveInGod said: Is the earth truly an open system considering that it exchanges very little matter with the rest of the universe?

We're talking energy here, Biggie, not matter...

Just asking, because it is said that an open system exchanges matter and energy with it's surrounding environment. Now how about the second question. If you place a rat with cheese in a perfectly sealed and insulated box, would it be a closed system or an open system?

Henry said: I don't think Morris was lying. This is what he claimed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature. The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how much this process has progressed. The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Eric Finn said: Dear harold, No offence taken. My style of writing is often far too complicated for myself. What comes to my position regarding religions, I would like to quote Bertrand Russell. This quote does not imply that I might be familiar with philosphy. ....

Joe Felsenstein said: Folks, the Yes/No/God debate takes place elsewhere. There are plenty of forums for it.

Joe Felsenstein said: I'm glad that "Eric Finn" and "harold" can find some way to communicate, and even agree, about religion. But they should have done so on the Wall, and all followups to those comments are being sent there. Folks, the Yes/No/God debate takes place elsewhere. There are plenty of forums for it.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Eric Finn said: Dear harold, No offence taken. My style of writing is often far too complicated for myself. What comes to my position regarding religions, I would like to quote Bertrand Russell. This quote does not imply that I might be familiar with philosphy. ....

I'm glad that "Eric Finn" and "harold" can find some way to communicate, and even agree, about religion. But they should have done so on the Wall, and all followups to those comments are being sent there. Folks, the Yes/No/God debate takes place elsewhere. There are plenty of forums for it.

IBelieveInGod said: Is the earth truly an open system considering that it exchanges very little matter with the rest of the universe? I'm not saying that earth is not an open system, just throwing that out for discussion.

Now let me ask this: If you place a rat with cheese in a perfectly sealed and insulated box, would it be a closed system or an open system?

SWT said: I also note that you didn't answer my questions:

IBelieveInGod said:

SWT said: Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

[IBIG not responding]

I'm not inclined to respond to you about anything else on this thread until you at least try to respond seriously to these questions.

Entropy in classical thermodynamics : ΔS = ΔQ/ΔT If an amount of heat ΔQ leaves a system at temperature T_higher and enters the environment at a temperature T_lower, then the change in entropy is ΔS = - ΔQ/T_higher + ΔQ/T_lower. Dividing the same amount of heat by a smaller temperature gives a larger number. Therefore the entropy lost by the system is smaller than the entropy gained by the environment. In other words, the overall entropy has increased.

Entropy in statistical mechanics : S = k_B ln Ω Where Ω is the number of accessible energy microstates consistent the macroscopic state of the system. More generally, S = - k_B Σ₁^Ωp_j lnp_j where p_j is the probability that the system is in the jth microstate. If all microstates are equally probable, p_j = 1/Ω and this formula reduces to the one above. If all the constituents of the system are allowed to interact and exchange energy with each other (matter interacts with matter), then in an isolated system, those probabilities will become equal and the expression will become maximized. This is a little exercise everyone should do to demonstrate to themselves the meaning of entropy tending toward a maximum in an ISOLATED system, provided that the constituents can exchange energy. I am not going to tell you how to do this little exercise. Some may want to use calculus; others may want to just fiddle with the numbers. Figure it out according to your level of mathematical ability.

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

No, it's not. All of the processes occurring in a living organism follow the second law. All of the processes occurring after death follow the second law. An organism remains an open system after death because matter and energy can still flow in to/out of the organism -- there is still no barrier prohibiting those flows. Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

IBIG,

Every time you write, "living organisms convert matter to energy," you reveal you utter ignorance:):):)

Rob said: IBIG, Every time you write, "living organisms convert matter to energy," you reveal you utter ignorance:):):)

Rob said: IBIG, Every time you write, "living organisms convert matter to energy," you reveal you utter ignorance:):):)

http://www.uvm.edu/~cmehrten/courses/earthhist/Earth%20Closed%20System.pdf

http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/types_of_systems.html

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1304/teaching/teaching.htm

Here are a few links that add to this interesting discussion. Is earth truly an open system? Maybe the best explanation is that earth is both an open and closed system.

apokryltaros said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Folks, the Yes/No/God debate takes place elsewhere. There are plenty of forums for it.

Then the IBelieveInGod troll should not be allowed to post here, either. After all, every single one of his posts are an attempt to hijack the thread so he can go "all scientists are stupid, evil, and all hate God, therefore, science is totally wrong, therefore, GODDIDIT." Every single one of his posts.

IBelieveInGod said:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: The human brain needs energy to function, so you eat and drink (maybe a energy drink),and then our body converts that food into energy which the brain can use to function, this is what SLOT means. Now when you die everything stops functioning, and the body ceases to be an open system, it's sort of like pulling the plug, and the body falls in to disorder. Now is this a good example of SLOT?

No, it's not. All of the processes occurring in a living organism follow the second law. All of the processes occurring after death follow the second law. An organism remains an open system after death because matter and energy can still flow in to/out of the organism -- there is still no barrier prohibiting those flows. Barring massive trauma, in what way do you think an body is less "ordered" a moment after death compared to before death? Do you have a way to quantify this?

Here is the problem with your argument, the cells within a dead organism can no longer make use of any energy, they can not convert matter into energy either. It's true that the dead organism is an open system if you are going to argue about other organisms that feed off of it, but entropy will increase as the dead organism falls into decay. The dead organism will no longer be able to reproduce, no longer be able to grow, no longer able to produce new cells. By the way I don't believe I said that there would be an immediate increase in entropy, if I did I meant that it would fall into disorder and decay.

Joe Felsenstein said:

apokryltaros said:

Joe Felsenstein said: Folks, the Yes/No/God debate takes place elsewhere. There are plenty of forums for it.

Then the IBelieveInGod troll should not be allowed to post here, either. After all, every single one of his posts are an attempt to hijack the thread so he can go "all scientists are stupid, evil, and all hate God, therefore, science is totally wrong, therefore, GODDIDIT." Every single one of his posts.

I am moderating based on the on- or off-topic-ness of the individual comments, not on the motivation of the posters. I shudder to think of what would happen if we moderated that way. Some trolls may be motivated by benevolently wanting us all to get into Heaven. Nevertheless under the present regime (me) their OT posts get sent to the Wall.

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.uvm.edu/~cmehrten/courses/earthhist/Earth%20Closed%20System.pdf http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/types_of_systems.html http://www.pbs.org/saf/1304/teaching/teaching.htm Here are a few links that add to this interesting discussion. Is earth truly an open system? Maybe the best explanation is that earth is both an open and closed system.

Atheistoclast said: I think you are doing an excellent job as a moderator. The key to understanding the 2nd law ,with respect to spatial patterning in biology, is that you need to be able to manage chaos. You need to impose order out of disorder, but it is only by way of the possibilities non-equilibrium and non-linear states throw up that you can create anything at all. This is the basis of Turing's chemical theory of reaction and diffusion.

IBelieveInGod said: Here is the problem with your argument, the cells within a dead organism can no longer make use of any energy, they can not convert matter into energy either.

It's true that the dead organism is an open system if you are going to argue about other organisms that feed off of it,

entropy will increase as the dead organism falls into decay. The dead organism will no longer be able to reproduce, no longer be able to grow, no longer able to produce new cells.

Atheistoclast said: I think you are doing an excellent job as a moderator. The key to understanding the 2nd law ,with respect to spatial patterning in biology, is that you need to be able to manage chaos.

IBelieveInGod said: ... Here are a few links that add to this interesting discussion. Is earth truly an open system? Maybe the best explanation is that earth is both an open and closed system.

eric said:

Atheistoclast said: I think you are doing an excellent job as a moderator. The key to understanding the 2nd law ,with respect to spatial patterning in biology, is that you need to be able to manage chaos.

AFAIK there is no "spatial patterning" predictions for the second law at all, unless one pattern allows for more available microstates. Please, elucidate us on where in either the classic thermodynamic version or the boltzmann version, "spatial patterning" is mentioned.

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: IBIG, Every time you write, "living organisms convert matter to energy," you reveal you utter ignorance:):):)

http://www.ghc.org/healthAndWellness/?item=/common/healthAndWellness/conditions/diabetes/foodProcess.html http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006 http://homepages.ius.edu/gkirchne/glycolysis.htm

Joe Felsenstein said:

IBelieveInGod said: ... Here are a few links that add to this interesting discussion. Is earth truly an open system? Maybe the best explanation is that earth is both an open and closed system.

The actual issue for discussions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is whether the biosphere (or, more grandly, the earth) is an isolated system. i.e., one that has neither matter nor energy entering or leaving it. I have made that mistake myself earlier in my posts that ridiculed Granville Sewell for the unconscious hilariousness of his arguments. I said "closed" and got corrected by the experts here very quickly. In my second and later posts on Sewell, I said "closed, isolated". There there is no ambiguity: even to a rough approximation neither the Earth nor its biosphere is isolated. Anyone who thinks either of them is isolated is wrong, and is advised to put sunblock on anyway.

Chemical energy involves matter-energy transformations as much as nuclear energy does. The difference is that I believe that no one has actually measured the lost mass when, say, gasoline is burned.

But it has to happen. There's no "energy" stored up in gasoline (or actually, in gasoline and oxygen) except as mass.

E=mc^2 counts everywhere, not just in nuclear interactions.

Glen Davidson

Here's a source that supports the idea that chemical energy is also a "conversion of mass to energy" (page 1):

http://www.nuceng.ca/sner/NuclEngy3.PDF

It's a good enough source, although the real point remains that E=mc^2 simply describes what happens, without distinguishing between nuclear and chemical reactions.

Glen Davidson

Scott F said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: IBIG, Every time you write, "living organisms convert matter to energy," you reveal you utter ignorance:):):)

http://www.ghc.org/healthAndWellness/?item=/common/healthAndWellness/conditions/diabetes/foodProcess.html http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006 http://homepages.ius.edu/gkirchne/glycolysis.htm

Sorry, but none of those links say anything about converting "matter" into "energy". The word "matter" does not appear anywhere. They all talk about converting "food" into energy. Specifically, they discuss extracting or releasing energy from food by combining the food with oxygen to produce ATP. Yes, "food" is made up of "matter", but none of the "matter" in food is actually turned into energy. None of the "matter" is consumed. The "matter" simply passes out of the body as poop, or becomes part of the body. Making and using ATP is a chemical reaction, converting one form of energy (in food) into another (work or heat). Actually converting "matter" into "energy" is a nuclear reaction, which is far more energetic. (And I'm sure Mike has those relative energy ranges on the tip of his tongue. :-) "Living organisms" do not use nuclear reactions for energy. If they did, then they wouldn't need "food", just like nuclear aircraft carriers or submarines don't need fuel. As Rob and others continue to correctly observe, your repeated failure to understand this distinction, even after is has been pointed out to you many times, continues to reveal your utter willful ignorance. You simply refuse to learn (definition #2).

I would assume most would have known what I was referring to with converting matter (food) into energy.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Chemical energy involves matter-energy transformations as much as nuclear energy does. The difference is that I believe that no one has actually measured the lost mass when, say, gasoline is burned. But it has to happen. There's no "energy" stored up in gasoline (or actually, in gasoline and oxygen) except as mass. E=mc^2 counts everywhere, not just in nuclear interactions. Glen Davidson

How about when you burn wood?

IBelieveInGod said: How about when you burn wood?

So, burning wood doesn't convert chemical energy (in the wood) to heat?

IBelieveInGod said:

Rob said: IBIG, Every time you write, "living organisms convert matter to energy," you reveal you utter ignorance:):):)

http://www.ghc.org/healthAndWellness/?item=/common/healthAndWellness/conditions/diabetes/foodProcess.html http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/metabolism/WT00006 http://homepages.ius.edu/gkirchne/glycolysis.htm

Rob said: Have you learned anything here at Panda's Thumb?

Mike Elzinga said:

Rob said: Have you learned anything here at Panda's Thumb?

Keep watching. He is off on a diversion; and he wants to hook someone to go along with it. He has been doing this for something like two years now. No change whatsoever. He still hasn’t looked at anything regarding entropy and the second law posted here. He didn't do it on any of those other threads either. What can one say about someone who not only doesn't read or learn, but never changes his shtick?

not know, even.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Here's a source that supports the idea that chemical energy is also a "conversion of mass to energy" (page 1): http://www.nuceng.ca/sner/NuclEngy3.PDF It's a good enough source, although the real point remains that E=mc^2 simply describes what happens, without distinguishing between nuclear and chemical reactions. Glen Davidson

Rob said: Glen, IBIG has acknowledged this is not what he meant. He made a mistake. One of many. I suggest he needs to provide his definition of matter and energy. The most interesting item in this article was the description of a natural self sustaining nuclear fission reaction that ran for ~100,000 years about 2 billion years ago in the Oklo Mine region, Gabon, Central Africa. Wow. I did not imagine this was possible. IBIG, How about these ages?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Here's a source that supports the idea that chemical energy is also a "conversion of mass to energy" (page 1): http://www.nuceng.ca/sner/NuclEngy3.PDF It's a good enough source, although the real point remains that E=mc^2 simply describes what happens, without distinguishing between nuclear and chemical reactions. Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/PSPW0GU_zfVn3qhjy1tC0lwbbxJLm3O14w--#c1afa said:

Rob said: Glen, IBIG has acknowledged this is not what he meant. He made a mistake. One of many. I suggest he needs to provide his definition of matter and energy. The most interesting item in this article was the description of a natural self sustaining nuclear fission reaction that ran for ~100,000 years about 2 billion years ago in the Oklo Mine region, Gabon, Central Africa. Wow. I did not imagine this was possible. IBIG, How about these ages?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Here's a source that supports the idea that chemical energy is also a "conversion of mass to energy" (page 1): http://www.nuceng.ca/sner/NuclEngy3.PDF It's a good enough source, although the real point remains that E=mc^2 simply describes what happens, without distinguishing between nuclear and chemical reactions. Glen Davidson

IBIG did not acknowledge an error on his part. He chastized us for failing to understand him.

Rob said: That is his way:):):)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/PSPW0GU_zfVn3qhjy1tC0lwbbxJLm3O14w--#c1afa said:

Rob said: Glen, IBIG has acknowledged this is not what he meant. He made a mistake. One of many. I suggest he needs to provide his definition of matter and energy. The most interesting item in this article was the description of a natural self sustaining nuclear fission reaction that ran for ~100,000 years about 2 billion years ago in the Oklo Mine region, Gabon, Central Africa. Wow. I did not imagine this was possible. IBIG, How about these ages?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Here's a source that supports the idea that chemical energy is also a "conversion of mass to energy" (page 1): http://www.nuceng.ca/sner/NuclEngy3.PDF It's a good enough source, although the real point remains that E=mc^2 simply describes what happens, without distinguishing between nuclear and chemical reactions. Glen Davidson

IBIG did not acknowledge an error on his part. He chastized us for failing to understand him.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/494074-the-digestive-circulatory-systems-converting-food-into-energy/

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/digestive-system-article/

http://healthmad.com/health/the-human-digestive-system/

http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/respro.html

Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

IBelieveInGod said: http://www.livestrong.com/article/494074-the-digestive-circulatory-systems-converting-food-into-energy/ http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/digestive-system-article/ http://healthmad.com/health/the-human-digestive-system/ http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/respro.html Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

Joe Felsenstein said: The actual issue for discussions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is whether the biosphere (or, more grandly, the earth) is an isolated system. i.e., one that has neither matter nor energy entering or leaving it.

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: The actual issue for discussions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is whether the biosphere (or, more grandly, the earth) is an isolated system. i.e., one that has neither matter nor energy entering or leaving it.

When discussing the 2lot and evolution, what is the appropriate system to be talking about? Is it the biosphere, or the Earth, or even the universe as a whole? Or is it the individual living thing, or maybe the individual and its parasites and symbionts? Or is it populations, species, clades, or "kinds"? Given that evolution is defined to be about changes in populations, my first guess is that the appropriate questions would be about something like populations.

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

Why don't you just quit the chase and move to the kill, and tell us exactly how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic magically prohibits abiogenesis and evolution from occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God, therefore scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS LORD?

Wow. I just downloaded and viewed Sewell's "The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations" (copyright 2005, Wiley). This is one of the places in which Sewell asks "Can *anything* happen in an open system?" (Appendix D in this book).

His math starts out fine, but his interpretation of what entropy is is absolutely mind-bogglingly wrong. Even my beginning undergraduates could tell where he went wrong (with one smart one asking, "Isn't Sewell just equating "entropy" with temperature gradient?").

co said: Wow. I just downloaded and viewed Sewell's "The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations" (copyright 2005, Wiley). This is one of the places in which Sewell asks "Can *anything* happen in an open system?" (Appendix D in this book). His math starts out fine, but his interpretation of what entropy is is absolutely mind-bogglingly wrong. Even my beginning undergraduates could tell where he went wrong (with one smart one asking, "Isn't Sewell just equating "entropy" with temperature gradient?").

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

Why don't you just quit the chase and move to the kill, and tell us exactly how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic magically prohibits abiogenesis and evolution from occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God, therefore scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS LORD?

TomS said:

Joe Felsenstein said: The actual issue for discussions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is whether the biosphere (or, more grandly, the earth) is an isolated system. i.e., one that has neither matter nor energy entering or leaving it.

When discussing the 2lot and evolution, what is the appropriate system to be talking about? Is it the biosphere, or the Earth, or even the universe as a whole? Or is it the individual living thing, or maybe the individual and its parasites and symbionts? Or is it populations, species, clades, or "kinds"? Given that evolution is defined to be about changes in populations, my first guess is that the appropriate questions would be about something like populations.

It never occurs to these camp followers that their leaders are full of crap.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Here's a source that supports the idea that chemical energy is also a "conversion of mass to energy" (page 1): http://www.nuceng.ca/sner/NuclEngy3.PDF It's a good enough source, although the real point remains that E=mc^2 simply describes what happens, without distinguishing between nuclear and chemical reactions. Glen Davidson

The energy you get from burning something, for example coal, C + O2 == CO2 (2) comes from a change in mass: the mass of the carbon dioxide molecule is smaller than the sum of the masses of the carbon and oxygen molecules. But the difference is so small as to be unmeasurable.

Scott F said: Clearly I'm missing something here.

Scott F said: If the difference in mass is "unmeasurable", what part of which subatomic particle was converted to energy? Further, if we were to then convert the "CO2" back into "C" and "O2", would we then be creating mass out of energy? Clearly I'm missing something here.

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

Asking Biggy to state an argument is asking him to think in terms he can't use. He doesn't operate on logical treatment of evidence from observation. He operates on authority. Only authority. Nothing else.

He has been told by authority that the second law of thermodynamics states that any flow of energy must increase disorder, and therefore that living things must become more disordered, not less; and hence that living things could not have been created originally without defying the second law. This is necessarily a supernatural operation. Hence, God.

He cannot hear anyone telling him that this is not what the second law actually says. He cannot hear anyone telling him that disorder and entropy are different concepts. He cannot hear anyone telling him that his premises do not hold. His premises were given to him by authority. He can hear, know, and understand nothing but that authority. He is deaf and blind to anything else.

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

Why don't you just quit the chase and move to the kill, and tell us exactly how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic magically prohibits abiogenesis and evolution from occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God, therefore scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS LORD?

Typical, isn’t it? He attempts to derail the discussion, gets upbraided for it, and then he accuses us of derailing the discussion. I would suggest that this is a part of his attempts to taunt and be an infuriation pest. He has been practicing this shtick for at least a couple of years now. He still hasn’t read anything about entropy and the second law on this thread or any other thread. He will NEVER do that. That is the key.

schroedinger's cat said: Actually the IBIG is handling entropy correctly as it applies to life.

schroedinger's cat said: The difference between a living blade of grass and a live one is pretty easy to define - creation of negative entropy is for the living. and you are confusing everyone - right sometime and wrong overall.

schroedinger's cat said: From What is Life? by Erwin Schroedinger: [...]

schroedinger's cat said: And Claude Shannon saw the parallel to Boltzmann and that is why he used the term entropy as well.

schroedinger's cat said: You materialists are making a priori assumptions that prevent you from dealing with evidence.

schroedinger's cat said: You need to explain how life came to feed on negative entropy and you haven't - that applies to thermodynamics and information.

schroedinger's cat said: The only correct intellectual position is to admit you materialists don't know the origin of life - agnostic - and not keep knocking creationists.

schroedinger's cat said: You don't know know how life started or it would be reproduced by now in a lab.

Can any creationist tell me when, why and how the 2LOT makes biological reproduction impossible?

Where in the chain of events in reproduction is the barrier of 2LOT?

AFAIK, my family history is one of uninterrupted reproduction without any outside help for many generations. That also applies to the bacteria in and on my body. It seems to me that wouldn’t be the case without the 2LOT.

Dave Luckett said: Asking Biggy to state an argument is asking him to think in terms he can't use. He doesn't operate on logical treatment of evidence from observation. He operates on authority. Only authority. Nothing else. He has been told by authority that the second law of thermodynamics states that any flow of energy must increase disorder, and therefore that living things must become more disordered, not less; and hence that living things could not have been created originally without defying the second law. This is necessarily a supernatural operation. Hence, God. He cannot hear anyone telling him that this is not what the second law actually says. He cannot hear anyone telling him that disorder and entropy are different concepts. He cannot hear anyone telling him that his premises do not hold. His premises were given to him by authority. He can hear, know, and understand nothing but that authority. He is deaf and blind to anything else.

Rolf said: Can any creationist tell me when, why and how the 2LOT makes biological reproduction impossible? Where in the chain of events in reproduction is the barrier of 2LOT? AFAIK, my family history is one of uninterrupted reproduction without any outside help for many generations. That also applies to the bacteria in and on my body. It seems to me that wouldn’t be the case without the 2LOT.

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

I already dealt with the abiogenesis question here. Non-living materials regularly undergo entropy-reducing reactions without any divine interaction needed. As far as I can tell, the argument you're trying to make is that because some specific types of dead organic matter (dead bodies) don't spontaneously undergo some specific entropy-reducing reactions that you think are important (the ones involving growth), therefore, entropy-reducing reactions can't occur without intelligent design. Is that your argument? If not, can you just flipping STATE your argument?

IBelieveInGod said:

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Believe what you want, I know what I was referring to. So, this is your way of sidetracking the discussion away from how SLOT impacts abiogenesis, or evolution.

I already dealt with the abiogenesis question here. Non-living materials regularly undergo entropy-reducing reactions without any divine interaction needed. As far as I can tell, the argument you're trying to make is that because some specific types of dead organic matter (dead bodies) don't spontaneously undergo some specific entropy-reducing reactions that you think are important (the ones involving growth), therefore, entropy-reducing reactions can't occur without intelligent design. Is that your argument? If not, can you just flipping STATE your argument?

What I'm saying is that a dead organism ceases to function, therefore can't decrease the entropy in it's own body, it can't grow, it can reproduce, it can't produce new cells, etc... It is the fact that living organisms contain molecular machines which are necessary for entropy-reducing reactions.

Let me ask you this question Eric, it is said that the sun is the source of energy, that makes it possible for complex molecules to self organize into the first self replicating molecules necessary for the start of life. But, isn't it a fact the the ultraviolet rays from the sun actually destroy organic compounds?

So there you have it folks, IBIGOT admits that living things don't violate the SLOT. Oh they may delay the inevitable for a while, just as long as they continue to take in matter and energy. But eventually, they cease to do this and they die. That is the fate of all living things, the SLOT gets them eventually. Now all IBIGOT has to do is realize this and bingo, no more problem for him with the SLOT. It isn't a problem for the origin of life, it isn't a problem for reproduction, it isn't a problem for evolution, period.

Now an eternal soul, that would violate the SLOT. An eternal god, that would violate the SLOT. Lots of things could potentially violate the SLOT, unfortunately there isn't any evidence for any of them. I wonder why creationists never bring up these things?

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that other organisms utilize the dead body for resources to decrease their own entropy, as well as deliberately ignoring the fact that the dead body continues making chemical reactions with the environment directly, as well.

schroedinger's cat said: You materialists are making a priori assumptions that prevent you from dealing with evidence. You need to explain how life came to feed on negative entropy and you haven't

The only correct intellectual position is to admit you materialists don't know the origin of life - agnostic - and not keep knocking creationists. Their answer is a guess just like your answer is a guess - an a priori assumption.

Life stored information and fed on negative entropy *of the thermodynamic type* pretty much at the time and you don't know how either event happened and you can't reproduce it.

IBelieveInGod said: What I'm saying is that a dead organism ceases to function, therefore can't decrease the entropy in it's own body, it can't grow, it can reproduce, it can't produce new cells, etc...

It is the fact that living organisms contain molecular machines which are necessary for entropy-reducing reactions.

apokryltaros said: Why don't you just quit the chase and move to the kill, and tell us exactly how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic magically prohibits abiogenesis and evolution from occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God, therefore scientists are stupid and evil, and JESUS IS LORD?

Now, do you want to claim that angels help make ozone, or are you going to stop with this nonsense about how natural entropy-reducing reactions can’t occur?

And how, where and when does “intelligent design” take place such that it is not subject to the 2lot? When we know that human design (as well as any other activity that we know about, human or otherwise) is subject to the 2lot.

harold said: Who's right, creationists, Dembski or Sewell?

Schroedinger’s [sic] cat is dead; flatlined.

Furthermore, he hasn’t looked at any of the materials about entropy and the second law posted here an in the links to other discussions.

This cat needs to learn how to use the litter box instead of just randomly flinging his feces.

Erwin Schrödinger’s lectures - delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin in February 1943 - were his speculations about what the central reproductive unit of life might look like.

He got the fact that it was a quasicrystal right. Some of his other speculations lead researchers to the methods used to uncover this fact.

But he also got a number of things wrong; and his thermodynamic speculations were fuzzy and confused at best.

But isn’t it just like ID/creationists to go selectively pick out of the historical, public pronouncements of scientists speculating about the frontiers of scientific research those speculations that turned out to be wrong. Creationists not only quote-mine the literature, but they pass it off as the current scientific understanding.

And if that is pointed out to them, they turn around and argue that they should be free to speculate in the public schools as well.

Well, first of all, ID/creationists are not scientists; secondly, they don’t know any science; thirdly, they are saturated with pseudo-science bent to accommodate sectarian dogma; and forth they know nothing about the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The IBIG troll still thinks that metabolic processes reduce the entropy in a living organism.

Note the persistent misconception that living organisms have lower entropy. This derives from the ID/creationist notion that the second law of thermodynamics was mitigated by their deity before the “Fall,” and after that, their deity removed its sustaining hand.

Lower entropy also means “more advanced” to an ID/creationist. However, that also means that a youngster with half the dimensions of an adult will have one-eighth the entropy. Therefore youngsters are more advanced.

Don’tcha just loves ID/creationist “logic?”

Mike Elzinga said: The IBIG troll still thinks that metabolic processes reduce the entropy in a living organism. Note the persistent misconception that living organisms have lower entropy. This derives from the ID/creationist notion that the second law of thermodynamics was mitigated by their deity before the “Fall,” and after that, their deity removed its sustaining hand. Lower entropy also means “more advanced” to an ID/creationist. However, that also means that a youngster with half the dimensions of an adult will have one-eighth the entropy. Therefore youngsters are more advanced. Don’tcha just loves ID/creationist “logic?”

IBelieveInGod said: Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms...

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said: The IBIG troll still thinks that metabolic processes reduce the entropy in a living organism. Note the persistent misconception that living organisms have lower entropy. This derives from the ID/creationist notion that the second law of thermodynamics was mitigated by their deity before the “Fall,” and after that, their deity removed its sustaining hand. Lower entropy also means “more advanced” to an ID/creationist. However, that also means that a youngster with half the dimensions of an adult will have one-eighth the entropy. Therefore youngsters are more advanced. Don’tcha just loves ID/creationist “logic?”

Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms. 1. A fertilized egg divides into thousands of cells to form an embryo. ( is this an example of decreased entropy)? 2. A protein is assembled from individual amino acids by a ribosome (is this an example of decreased entropy)?

One of the earlier comments by one of the newer posters took issue with how hard we are on this IBIG troll.

I suggested to this commenter that he just keep watching.

Well, the pattern hasn’t changed in something like two years.

Is there any doubt about this "kick-me" troll’s MO and dull-wittedness?

Watch as he reaches to play the persecution card.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the earlier comments by one of the newer posters took issue with how hard we are on this IBIG troll. I suggested to this commenter that he just keep watching. Well, the pattern hasn’t changed in something like two years. Is there any doubt about this "kick-me" troll’s MO and dull-wittedness? Watch as he reaches to play the persecution card.

Apparently this is IBIG's idea of WWJD.
Apparently Jesus would remain willfully ignorant, refuse to learn, and continue the Gish Gallop.
Funny, that ain't the Jesus I read about.
Whatever.

IBelieveInGod said:

Mike Elzinga said: The IBIG troll still thinks that metabolic processes reduce the entropy in a living organism. Note the persistent misconception that living organisms have lower entropy. This derives from the ID/creationist notion that the second law of thermodynamics was mitigated by their deity before the “Fall,” and after that, their deity removed its sustaining hand. Lower entropy also means “more advanced” to an ID/creationist. However, that also means that a youngster with half the dimensions of an adult will have one-eighth the entropy. Therefore youngsters are more advanced. Don’tcha just loves ID/creationist “logic?”

Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms. 1. A fertilized egg divides into thousands of cells to form an embryo. ( is this an example of decreased entropy)? 2. A protein is assembled from individual amino acids by a ribosome (is this an example of decreased entropy)?

As an aside, I use the concept of an egg carton in my discussion of entropy in gen chem. The egg carton represents the universe and eggs represent particles.

One egg can be placed in 12 distinct positions (energy wells) within the carton. Two eggs occupy a larger number of positions than one egg; each egg can be uniquely identified (someone can do the math - I'm sure it's not complicated).

Then I ask which arrangement is more ordered and which is more disordered - two eggs sitting next to each other or eggs segregated into opposite wells - and the responses are very enlightening.

Then I place three eggs in the carton and so forth.

The whole point of this is, of course, to show that entropy deals with microstates and energy dissipation, not order or information or whatever the creationist silly concept of the day happens to be.

Or as Dr. Manhattan puts it "A live human body and a deceased human body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference."

co said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms. 1. A fertilized egg divides into thousands of cells to form an embryo. ( is this an example of decreased entropy)? 2. A protein is assembled from individual amino acids by a ribosome (is this an example of decreased entropy)?

The very fact that you don't even specify the _system_ in each case is strong evidence (as if we needed more) that you don't understand local paraconservation at all.

Errr...change positive to negative. Stupid 1800s conventions on endo/exo!!!

JimNorth said: As an aside, I use the concept of an egg carton in my discussion of entropy in gen chem. The egg carton represents the universe and eggs represent particles. One egg can be placed in 12 distinct positions (energy wells) within the carton. Two eggs occupy a larger number of positions than one egg; each egg can be uniquely identified (someone can do the math - I'm sure it's not complicated). Then I ask which arrangement is more ordered and which is more disordered - two eggs sitting next to each other or eggs segregated into opposite wells - and the responses are very enlightening. Then I place three eggs in the carton and so forth. The whole point of this is, of course, to show that entropy deals with microstates and energy dissipation, not order or information or whatever the creationist silly concept of the day happens to be. Or as Dr. Manhattan puts it "A live human body and a deceased human body have the same number of particles. Structurally there's no difference."

Mike Elzinga said: Schroedinger’s [sic] cat is dead; flatlined. Furthermore, he hasn’t looked at any of the materials about entropy and the second law posted here an in the links to other discussions. This cat needs to learn how to use the litter box instead of just randomly flinging his feces. Erwin Schrödinger’s lectures - delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin in February 1943 - were his speculations about what the central reproductive unit of life might look like. He got the fact that it was a quasicrystal right. Some of his other speculations lead researchers to the methods used to uncover this fact. But he also got a number of things wrong; and his thermodynamic speculations were fuzzy and confused at best. But isn’t it just like ID/creationists to go selectively pick out of the historical, public pronouncements of scientists speculating about the frontiers of scientific research those speculations that turned out to be wrong. Creationists not only quote-mine the literature, but they pass it off as the current scientific understanding. And if that is pointed out to them, they turn around and argue that they should be free to speculate in the public schools as well. Well, first of all, ID/creationists are not scientists; secondly, they don’t know any science; thirdly, they are saturated with pseudo-science bent to accommodate sectarian dogma; and forth they know nothing about the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

IBelieveInGod said: Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms. 1. A fertilized egg divides into thousands of cells to form an embryo. ( is this an example of decreased entropy)? 2. A protein is assembled from individual amino acids by a ribosome (is this an example of decreased entropy)?

schroedinger's cat said: Try to figure out the role that entropy plays in deciding the difference between a dead blade of grass and a living one. try real hard and maybe you will get a clue. Schroedinger also stumped Einstein so don't feel too bad at this point, just humiliated,

co said:

schroedinger's cat said: Actually the IBIG is handling entropy correctly as it applies to life.

IBIG isn't "handling" it at all. He's not even attempting to define it in a coherent way.

schroedinger's cat said: The difference between a living blade of grass and a live one is pretty easy to define - creation of negative entropy is for the living. and you are confusing everyone - right sometime and wrong overall.

Utterly fatuous statement. LOTS of non-living things remove entropy from a region, and increase it elsewhere. Chemical reactions do it all the time. Ratchet systems do it all the time. Reentrant phase transitions do it all the time. Your mis-handling of the concepts is very telling.

schroedinger's cat said: From What is Life? by Erwin Schroedinger: [...]

A long quote from Schrodinder's fine book, "What is Life?". It's also wrong, since it's not _entropy_ that matters nearly as much as Gibbs free energy. Entropy factors in, but so does the temperature and enthalpy. *Do* try to read past the developments of 1876, will you? Schrodinger raised some interesting issues in his book, especially in regards to DNA. His presenting entropy and negentropy, though, was a non-starter, as has been well-known pretty much since it was published.

schroedinger's cat said: And Claude Shannon saw the parallel to Boltzmann and that is why he used the term entropy as well.

LOL. Perhaps you need to read a bit more into the history of Shannon's choice for the term. We'll wait for you, but not long.

schroedinger's cat said: You materialists are making a priori assumptions that prevent you from dealing with evidence.

What assumptions? The existing theory works just fine for all the evidence -- or did you not know that?

schroedinger's cat said: You need to explain how life came to feed on negative entropy and you haven't - that applies to thermodynamics and information.

First, try "Gibbs free energy" rather than "entropy". Then try reading a book on biophysics published in, oh, the last 50 years.

schroedinger's cat said: The only correct intellectual position is to admit you materialists don't know the origin of life - agnostic - and not keep knocking creationists.

Who's denying that? But at least we're working on figuring it out, and all signs point to us going in the right direction. Self-catalysis and clay can do a helluva lot. Again, try actually researching this stuff before you puke all over the forum.

schroedinger's cat said: You don't know know how life started or it would be reproduced by now in a lab.

*facepalm* Wow. You're utterly clueless.

schroedinger's cat said: ... I've talked to a key leader in bioinformatics about the origin of information in DNA and the best he could do is say is had something to do with self-organization and snowflakes. We see a lot of snowflakes in the winter but not that many evidences of new life popping into existence by self-organization. So no one know how to explain where information in DNA comes from. An associate is doing a SETI type deal to figure out how it might have happened but your claim that something in "biophysics" in the last 50 years explains the actual process where information got instilled into DNA is a lie on your part. I admit 100% I have no idea how it got there. But you don't know either and no one does. ... All your prejudice coming out shows you favor a priori assumptions over reliance on evidence.

A dead cat whined: How about as a rule we treat every unsupported belief you assert here as a lie? Seems fair to me. Didn’t you know that belief should be proportional to the evidence to support it?

IBelieveInGod said: "Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms." "1. A fertilized egg divides into thousands of cells to form an embryo. ( is this an example of decreased entropy)?" "2. A protein is assembled from individual amino acids by a ribosome (is this an example of decreased entropy)?"

prongs said: Wow IBIG, I think you must be smarter than I am. I can compute entropy (or the change in entropy) with the equations of Clausius or Boltzman (Mike showed us how, three times), but I'll be derned if I can do it for your two examples. Please enlighten us. Show us how to compute the change in entropy for these two examples of yours. Do it like Mike did, with a detailed explanation, no less than 3 times. Please educate us. Show us how to compute entropy.

apokryltaros said: "Better yet, IBelieve, show us how the 2nd Law magically prohibits evolution, therefore GODDIDIT"

I’m not completely surprised by the ferocity of these trolls at fighting the notion that their understanding of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics is verschlecht.

This notion of Henry Morris that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics was creationism’s ace-in-the-hole argument whenever they encountered a biologist that could take them down.

The argument still lurks in the background because it is THE Fundamental Misconception of all ID/creationism. They can’t have intelligent design and “information” without that misconception.

The second law is required for life; it doesn’t prevent it. They can’t stand that.

schroedinger's cat said: How about as a rule we treat every unsupported belief you assert here as a lie?

schroedinger's cat said: You appear to be asserting that Schroedinger ideas are dated to "1876." Schroedinger's "What is Life?" was first published in 1944. So you get 50% lie on that assertion of yours ... you may just not know better ... who knows what is going on inside your noggin ... you seem to have no control over what comes out of it.

schroedinger's cat said: You seem to be saying you know something about Shannon's use of the word entropy but there is nothing from you to back up your claim about know this history so you get scored as a lie on this assertion. Since a quick search of wiki agrees with me there is no point in saying more other than your message is an attempt to deceive the uniformed. I left out the "l" in "handling" so you get a tiny point on that one.

schroedinger's cat said: Where you claim Schroedinger's use of entropy and negentropy were non-starters and you don't back that up with evidence you get scored as one more lie. How many Nobel Prizes have you won more than Schroedinger's? I saw where Elzinga tries to elevate himself above Schroedinger as well.

schroedinger's cat said: [...] Large amount of drivel about materialists hating God in here. Not worth being trolled by.

co said:

schroedinger's cat said: From What is Life? by Erwin Schroedinger: [...]

A long quote from Schrodinder's fine book, "What is Life?". It's also wrong, since it's not _entropy_ that matters nearly as much as Gibbs free energy. Entropy factors in, but so does the temperature and enthalpy. *Do* try to read past the developments of 1876, will you? Schrodinger raised some interesting issues in his book, especially in regards to DNA. His presenting entropy and negentropy, though, was a non-starter, as has been well-known pretty much since it was published.

Joe Felsenstein said:

schroedinger's cat said: ... I've talked to a key leader in bioinformatics about the origin of information in DNA and the best he could do is say is had something to do with self-organization and snowflakes. We see a lot of snowflakes in the winter but not that many evidences of new life popping into existence by self-organization. So no one know how to explain where information in DNA comes from. An associate is doing a SETI type deal to figure out how it might have happened but your claim that something in "biophysics" in the last 50 years explains the actual process where information got instilled into DNA is a lie on your part. I admit 100% I have no idea how it got there. But you don't know either and no one does. ... All your prejudice coming out shows you favor a priori assumptions over reliance on evidence.

On this point (the origin of information in DNA) I would be curious to know why "schroedinger's cat" thinks there is a problem. If someone alleged to be "a key leader in bioinformatics" gave a fatuous answer (or is asserted to have given it) that is their problem. But the answer is actually simple: the particular sequences we see have information that makes the organism well adapted because they were selected (by natural selection). I think I have some credentials in bioinformatics too, and that is my assertion. Is SC perhaps thinking that William Dembski's arguments have shown that one cannot get Complex Specified Information in DNA by natural selection? (In particular Dembski's Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information, or his No Free Lunch argument?). I have an article arguing that Dembski's arguments are wrong. If SC has any disagreement with my conclusions, I hope SC will explain why, in detail. (And please note, lest we get distracted, that the issue is not how DNA or the machinery that replicates it or expresses it got started, it is how the particular well-adapted sequences that we see in real organisms got chosen out of all possible sequences).

schroedinger's cat said: Some can't see the forest for the trees. A priori assumptions get in the way.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

apokryltaros said:

A dead cat whined: How about as a rule we treat every unsupported belief you assert here as a lie? Seems fair to me. Didn’t you know that belief should be proportional to the evidence to support it?

It's hypocritical you blast us as being cruel materialists tormenting poor creationists, then demand that we substantiate everything we say. After all, the only reason why creationists and all other science-deniers demand contrary evidence is to automatically invalidate it for not agreeing with their apriori assumptions in the first place. As for belief being in proportion to evidence: then explain to us why Young Earth Creationists so fervently believe that the world was magically poofed into existence by God, using magic, 10,000 years ago, as per a literal reading of the Bible, even though there exists absolutely no evidence to substantiate this belief.

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Some can't see the forest for the trees. A priori assumptions get in the way.

You know absolutely nothing about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics or what any of it has to do with living organisms. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. Take this concept test; and in addition to the questions asked in the test, show us where the “order” or “disorder” enters the picture. Also compute the “information” and tell us how to compute it and what it means.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

You really need to stop bluffing and playing these gotcha games.

schroedinger's cat said: keep things really simple ... what is the difference between a living blade of grass and a dead one? I asked this question first so you answer my questions first. Then you get your answers. Also ... What unsupervised chemical reaction nature deals in energy processing to resist death as long as a joshua tree? ... keep things even ... same number of atoms in your reaction compared with approximate same numbers as in the joshua tree. Ceteris paribus.

schroedinger's cat said: Why ask me to defend creationists? I am not one.

schroedinger's cat said: keep things really simple ... what is the difference between a living blade of grass and a dead one? I asked this question first so you answer my questions first. Then you get your answers.

Also ... What unsupervised chemical reaction nature deals in energy processing to resist death as long as a joshua tree?

... keep things even ... same number of atoms in your reaction compared with approximate same numbers as in the joshua tree.

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: keep things really simple ... what is the difference between a living blade of grass and a dead one? I asked this question first so you answer my questions first. Then you get your answers. Also ... What unsupervised chemical reaction nature deals in energy processing to resist death as long as a joshua tree? ... keep things even ... same number of atoms in your reaction compared with approximate same numbers as in the joshua tree. Ceteris paribus.

No; you were the one who barged in here derailing the thread and making claims about things you know nothing about. And, as in every case with any of you trolls who thinks he knows everything better than the scientists do, you cannot even pass an elementary test in basic concepts. Take that test and demonstrate you are worthy of being taken seriously.

apokryltaros said: schrodinger's cat the concern troll is concerned... Not really. It would help clarify things if he were to stop clowning around with his inane questions and explain to us what dead versus living grass have to do with creationists falsely claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits evolution from occurring. But, he seems more concerned with scolding and shaming us for being evil, stupid materialists than actually discussing anything.

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: keep things really simple ... what is the difference between a living blade of grass and a dead one? I asked this question first so you answer my questions first. Then you get your answers. Also ... What unsupervised chemical reaction nature deals in energy processing to resist death as long as a joshua tree? ... keep things even ... same number of atoms in your reaction compared with approximate same numbers as in the joshua tree. Ceteris paribus.

No; you were the one who barged in here derailing the thread and making claims about things you know nothing about. And, as in every case with any of you trolls who thinks he knows everything better than the scientists do, you cannot even pass an elementary test in basic concepts. Take that test and demonstrate you are worthy of being taken seriously.

eric said:

schroedinger's cat said: keep things really simple ... what is the difference between a living blade of grass and a dead one? I asked this question first so you answer my questions first. Then you get your answers.

Sure. Answer: an active metabolism. Okay, now do Mike's problem. His 16-atom system has 23 orders of magnitude less atoms in it than your blade of grass, so you should have no problem with this.

Also ... What unsupervised chemical reaction nature deals in energy processing to resist death as long as a joshua tree?

That "to resist death" makes it kind of a rigged question, doesn't it? Since only living things can resist death, you are essentially asking what unsupervised chemical reaction in nature is alive. None, individually.

... keep things even ... same number of atoms in your reaction compared with approximate same numbers as in the joshua tree.

I have no idea how you are counting, but, uh, no. 16 atoms vs. several hundred kilograms' worth is not approximately the same. You're off by ~24-26 orders of magnitude. And, incidentally, have you come up with your support for belief in non-material things yet? Or do you consider them to be lies?

schroedinger's cat said: Before answering your question - is the temperature above absolute zero?

IBIG, you have me completely confused about the point you are trying to make. Could you please answer the following questions? For all four questions, set the boundary of the system at the outer surface of the tree (the boundary will change as the tree grows and dies).

1. Assume a viable seed drops from a tree. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT?
2. For as long as it takes the tree to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT?
3. Assume a viable tree seed drops from a tree. But this time the seed has a neutral genetic mutation that does not affect the ability of the tree to survive in the environment. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT?
4. For as long as it takes the tree with the mutation to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT?

Thanks for your attention. Your answers will help.

to Eric's comment:

>That “to resist death” makes it kind of a rigged question, doesn’t it? Since only living things can resist death, you are essentially asking what unsupervised chemical reaction in nature is alive. None, individually.

Not rigged at all, just helping materialists here focus at the level of quantity of molecules that is relevant to creating life, as well as making clear the difference between something living and dead. You hit on the right answer so good on you. Mike and a number of materialist bozos try to pretend that chemical reactions line up and logically become alive. The idea goes this way ->

We are alive and we are made from molecules. There is no God so natural unsupervised chemical processes had to create life (my difficulty with Mike's example - which does not apply in carbon nanotubes - is we are actually dealing with the numbers of atoms and molecules at the 6.022 10^23 Avogadro constant quantity level - again another one of my observations, Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

So what we are left with is some sort of materialist miracle natural processes that created life even as no examples or models makes the idea reasonable. A friend of mine is doing a SETI type deal to blast away at the problem with massive numbers of computer cycles. I am curious to see if he can deliver a likely result.

No system above absolute zero has any order (how we normally think of that word) so why should anyone jump through Mike's issues or take him seriously. Materialist a priori assumptions create a brain fog in people with this faith.

my advice, since you got the right answer, is to avoid having faith in materialism OR creationism and just focus on the evidence.

My bioinformatics buddy was totally wrong in thinking orderly crystalline snow flakes that got there by self-organization have anything to do with the life's beginning. Talking to a number of top bioinformatics experts at Monterrey a while back I got the idea they don't have a clue about information ... even as their field is called bioinformatics.

alicejohn said: IBIG, you have me completely confused about the point you are trying to make. Could you please answer the following questions? For all four questions, set the boundary of the system at the outer surface of the tree (the boundary will change as the tree grows and dies). 1. Assume a viable seed drops from a tree. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT? 2. For as long as it takes the tree to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT? 3. Assume a viable tree seed drops from a tree. But this time the seed has a neutral genetic mutation that does not affect the ability of the tree to survive in the environment. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT? 4. For as long as it takes the tree with the mutation to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT? Thanks for your attention. Your answers will help.

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said: schrodinger's cat the concern troll is concerned... Not really. It would help clarify things if he were to stop clowning around with his inane questions and explain to us what dead versus living grass have to do with creationists falsely claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits evolution from occurring. But, he seems more concerned with scolding and shaming us for being evil, stupid materialists than actually discussing anything.

Keep on demanding they answer that question, apokryltaros. The mere fact that they don’t even respond is pretty good evidence that it is a fundamentally uncomfortable question for them. They insist on getting the science wrong; but even their pseudo-science can’t answer how “goddidit.” They have to choose either something spooky that they cannot hope to demonstrate, or they can choose the discomfort of having believed Henry Morris for all these years. Fairy tales either way.

schroedinger's cat said: Your fairy tale materialist belief system can't explain how a joshua tree comes into existence. Your materialist "pseudo-science" can't explain how unsupervised processes created life -> back at you. I fully admit I don't know. This is the answer honest people should give. Only correct answer as of now. Not a creationist and not a materialist.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

schroedinger's cat said:

alicejohn said: IBIG, you have me completely confused about the point you are trying to make. Could you please answer the following questions? For all four questions, set the boundary of the system at the outer surface of the tree (the boundary will change as the tree grows and dies). 1. Assume a viable seed drops from a tree. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT? 2. For as long as it takes the tree to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT? 3. Assume a viable tree seed drops from a tree. But this time the seed has a neutral genetic mutation that does not affect the ability of the tree to survive in the environment. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT? 4. For as long as it takes the tree with the mutation to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT? Thanks for your attention. Your answers will help.

alicejohn: Anything that is not alive will move towards maximum entropy significantly faster than a joshua tree that lives 2,000 years. That is how to tell the difference between something alive and not alive. Ask all the bozo materialists here how the joshua tree got that capability and watch them dance and not answer how.

schroedinger's cat said: Anything that is not alive will move towards maximum entropy significantly faster than a joshua tree that lives 2,000 years. That is how to tell the difference between something alive and not alive. Ask all the bozo materialists here how the joshua tree got that capability and watch them dance and not answer how.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Cat, it's OK to say you don't know whether materialism is right or not. I don't, myself.

But sneering at people for looking for material explanations for life is out. If you really don't know, then it must follow that they might be right. At the very least, their researches are fruitful of knowledge of the material. Maybe that's not everything - although you can't demonstrate that there's anything else - but it is something.

And before you get to gallop off into the hazy realms of speculation on the immaterial, you have to demonstrate that you have a working understanding of what the theories of the material can explain, simply because they are demonstrable and not speculative. You have only demonstrated that you don't understand them. Your concept of entropy is stuck in the same place as "creation science" has been for forty years - entropy equals disorder, or decay, or dissolution or some such. It ain't so.

That's why you were taken to be a creationist. If you don't want to be taken as a creationist, learn to understand and calculate entropy rigorously, and accept that there is nothing in the concept of entropy or in the second law of thermodynamics that prevents the growth, reproduction, or evolution of living things.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry said: I don't think Morris was lying. This is what he claimed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature. The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how much this process has progressed. The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

It would really help, Henry, if you actually worked your way through the answers to that quiz before trying to insist that entropy is “a universal principle of decay.” It doesn’t help to go searching for examples of the propagating creationist memes and popular misconceptions as “proof” of your “argument” when you don’t even know what entropy is, how it is calculated, and how it is used in thermodynamics. Whether you wish to admit it or not, the concepts of entropy and the second law have been used in physics for well over a century, and physicists not only know how it applies to the real world, they have invented technology based on that knowledge, and you are using that technology even as you type your objections. Here is what you need to do. (1) Read and understand the example given in that concept test. (2) Ask yourself where the “decay” and “disorder” are in that example. (3) If you think you find “decay” and “disorder” in that example, tell us what it is and tell us how entropy measures it. (4) If you think entropy is about “information,” tell us what that information is. (5) Tell us how to calculate that “information.” (6) Ask yourself why you don’t understand the relationship between entropy, total energy and temperature. (7) Ask yourself if there might be something significant about that relationship in (6). (8) Go look at Clausius’s coining of the word entropy. Do you see anything about decay and disorder there? (9) Contrast Henry Morris’s pseudo-scholarship with what Clausius actually defined. (10) Ask yourself if Morris had actually read Clausius. Does Morris understand entropy? We in the physics community have known for decades the damage the ID/creationists have done by spreading Morris’s misconceptions about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Just because you can find these misconceptions in ID/creationist materials and in popular media doesn’t’ mean they are the concepts that actually have anything to do with reality. Ten things to do, Henry. Can you do them?

The most frustrating thread at PT ever?
I just want to point out that there is no need even to mention the origins of life in the context of 2LOT.

1. We know there is life on this planet, has been for a long time and probably will for yet a long time.

2. No fundamental difference between short or long living species. Birth (if we may think 'birth' of a bacterium) to death, that's all.

3. What is death? We are dying all the time, cell by cell, but luckily enough, they get replaced. When we finally die, most of our cells are still alive, yet suddenly we are 'dead'. What is life, what is death? You 'kill' a car engine by turning the key to off. Where is the ignition key in a human body, or in a bacterium?

As had been pointed out many times already, entropy is what makes the world go round. Nothing more, nothing less. Most striking, though, is how the know-all smartasses demonstrate gross misunderstanding of entropy - coupled with and a profound reluctance at learning. Why should they, they already know better. What do we need scientists for? Let the critics take over.

What say, IBIG, cat et al, ready for the big time? NASA, JPL, IBM, Boeing, the world is yours.

If the second law of thermodynamics is not an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature, is there any universal principle of decay in nature?

schroedinger's cat said: Not rigged at all, just helping materialists here focus at the level of quantity of molecules that is relevant to creating life,

Mike and a number of materialist bozos try to pretend that chemical reactions line up and logically become alive.

Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

my advice, since you got the right answer, is to avoid having faith in materialism OR creationism and just focus on the evidence.

Talking to a number of top bioinformatics experts at Monterrey a while back I got the idea they don't have a clue about information ... even as their field is called bioinformatics.

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said: schrodinger's cat the concern troll is concerned... Not really. It would help clarify things if he were to stop clowning around with his inane questions and explain to us what dead versus living grass have to do with creationists falsely claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits evolution from occurring. But, he seems more concerned with scolding and shaming us for being evil, stupid materialists than actually discussing anything.

Keep on demanding they answer that question, apokryltaros. The mere fact that they don’t even respond is pretty good evidence that it is a fundamentally uncomfortable question for them. They insist on getting the science wrong; but even their pseudo-science can’t answer how “goddidit.” They have to choose either something spooky that they cannot hope to demonstrate, or they can choose the discomfort of having believed Henry Morris for all these years. Fairy tales either way.

Your fairy tale materialist belief system can't explain how a joshua tree comes into existence. Your materialist "pseudo-science" can't explain how unsupervised processes created life -> back at you.

I fully admit I don't know. This is the answer honest people should give. Only correct answer as of now. Not a creationist and not a materialist.

eric said:

Talking to a number of top bioinformatics experts at Monterrey a while back I got the idea they don't have a clue about information ... even as their field is called bioinformatics.

Define information for us, then, oh sage. And while you're at it, have you come up with your support for belief in non-material things yet? Or do you consider them to be lies?

schroedinger's cat said: Please name a known unsupervised chemical reaction that lasts as long as a joshua tree lives - using the approximately the same number of atoms as the joshua tree.

... no one know how to explain where information in DNA comes from.

me: the answer is actually simple: the particular sequences we see have information that makes the organism well adapted because they were selected (by natural selection).

apokryltaros said: Ask any competent botanist, and after they look at you funny, they'll tell you that joshua trees evolved from the common ancestor of the agave genus Yucca

eric said:

schroedinger's cat said: Please name a known unsupervised chemical reaction that lasts as long as a joshua tree lives - using the approximately the same number of atoms as the joshua tree.

I can do you one better and name several known unsupervised reactions that last longer than a joshua tree lives - using far more atoms than the joshua tree has. Hint: look up during the day. Given that a number of those reactions are both endothermic and not spontaneous processes (using the techincal/chemical sense of the word), I would also hazard a guess that many of them result in locally decreased entropy.

Mike Elzinga wrote: There is a fundamental fact of nature that is constantly left out of these “disputes” over the second law of thermodynamics; and that is the fact that matter interacts with matter at all levels of complexity. Matter condenses into increasingly complex systems. That condensation depends on shedding energy; and that is the second law.

Eric wrote: Just to be clear, entropy is not a substance. Entropy is a description of how energy is divided among possible states. Take a system in which the energy is in a few states, and put it in contact with a different system with more available states, and the energy in system 1 will most likely flow into system 2 based on the laws of physics and chemistry. No “feeding apparatus” is needed.

JimNorth wrote: As an aside, I use the concept of an egg carton in my discussion of entropy in gen chem. The egg carton represents the universe and eggs represent particles. One egg can be placed in 12 distinct positions (energy wells) within the carton. Two eggs occupy a larger number of positions than one egg; each egg can be uniquely identified (someone can do the math - I’m sure it’s not complicated). Then I ask which arrangement is more ordered and which is more disordered - two eggs sitting next to each other or eggs segregated into opposite wells - and the responses are very enlightening. Then I place three eggs in the carton and so forth. The whole point of this is, of course, to show that entropy deals with microstates and energy dissipation, not order or information or whatever the creationist silly concept of the day happens to be.

co said: Excellent example. I myself was going to mention atmospheric reactions in response to SC's inane questioning.

Okay I'm back!

Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

IBelieveInGod said: Okay I'm back! Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms. 1. A fertilized egg divides into thousands of cells to form an embryo. ( is this an example of decreased entropy)? 2. A protein is assembled from individual amino acids by a ribosome (is this an example of decreased entropy)?

Okay let me ask you this: Which is "more ordered," a gram of liquid water or a gram of mixed liquid water and ice?

IBelieveInGod said: Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

IBelieveInGod said: Okay I'm back! Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

SWT said:

apokryltaros said: Ask any competent botanist, and after they look at you funny, they'll tell you that joshua trees evolved from the common ancestor of the agave genus Yucca

schroedinger's cat could be a Poe ... just here for the yuccas ...

IBelieveInGod said: Okay I'm back! Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

Oh good. it's back. NOw I can ignore it.

co said: Excellent example. I myself was going to mention atmospheric reactions in response to SC's inane questioning.

IBelieveInGod said: Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/Stravropoulos.html

schroedinger's cat said: Here is your answer: let's suppose the atoms are at absolute zero

You materialists have no shame. You have faith is something that does not exist yet you believe it regardless of the lack of evidence for your beliefs.

schroedinger's cat said: No system of atoms above zero kelvin has any order - check out a guy named Max Planck to get straight.

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

Here is your answer: let's suppose the atoms are at absolute zero ... what we see is the atoms have just one microstate, that is one arrangement of the atoms on particular energy levels. No system of atoms above zero kelvin has any order - check out a guy named Max Planck to get straight. Now explain to everyone that your mental exercise has nothing to do with how life might have been originated and just put here as a ruse to sell the potential for a materialist origin of life when no such model exists. You materialists have no shame. You have faith is something that does not exist yet you believe it regardless of the lack of evidence for your beliefs. You are happy to guess as opposed to know. Damage to science you all are. Why are guesses by a materialist better than a guess by a creationist? I don't know the origin of life and how it came about and I know you don't know either. Pretending you have an answer just shows a deep level of deception on your part, a pattern that repeats all down the materialist team. You all hate God so materialism must be true. What bozos you are.

So Joe, Fattest meme and the dead cat can't answer the simple questions. Good to know. We always knew that they had no training, experience or degrees in any relevant fields, now we know why. Thanks Mike, for providing an easy way to separate the experts from the pretenders. Once their incompetence is documented, there is no reason to take them seriously or respond to any of their taunts. If they want to make fools of themselves, so what? Everyone will have a good laugh.

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said: schrodinger's cat the concern troll is concerned... Not really. It would help clarify things if he were to stop clowning around with his inane questions and explain to us what dead versus living grass have to do with creationists falsely claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits evolution from occurring. But, he seems more concerned with scolding and shaming us for being evil, stupid materialists than actually discussing anything.

Keep on demanding they answer that question, apokryltaros. The mere fact that they don’t even respond is pretty good evidence that it is a fundamentally uncomfortable question for them. They insist on getting the science wrong; but even their pseudo-science can’t answer how “goddidit.” They have to choose either something spooky that they cannot hope to demonstrate, or they can choose the discomfort of having believed Henry Morris for all these years. Fairy tales either way.

Your fairy tale materialist belief system can't explain how a joshua tree comes into existence. Your materialist "pseudo-science" can't explain how unsupervised processes created life -> back at you.

You've constructed a crudely built strawman by demanding that we answer your stupid question via an inappropriate method, i.e., "how does the 2nd Law explain how joshua trees came into existence?" Your question is as nonsensically stupid as trying to damn modern architecture by demanding they use a cheesecake recipe to rebuild the Twin Towers. Ask any competent botanist, and after they look at you funny, they'll tell you that joshua trees evolved from the common ancestor of the agave genus Yucca

I fully admit I don't know. This is the answer honest people should give. Only correct answer as of now. Not a creationist and not a materialist.

No, you're actually describing yourself as a flaming, dishonest hypocrite. You claim to be just a passive observer, yet, you are, indeed, defending creationists, who are a thousand fold worse than the evil, stupid "materialists" you rail against, that, and you also fail to demonstrate how "materialism" is so awful and wrong beyond the fact that it can't answer your stupid loaded questions. So, if you have no intentions of explaining to us how immaterialism can explain the existence of joshua trees better (i.e., that a magical designer magicked them into existence?), or have no intentions of explaining what a dead versus living blade of grass has to do with the creationist claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits evolution from magically occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God, why don't you shut up? Unless, of course, you want to continue opening your mouth in order to keep reinserting your foot.

DS said: So Joe, Fattest meme and the dead cat can't answer the simple questions. Good to know. We always knew that they had no training, experience or degrees in any relevant fields, now we know why. Thanks Mike, for providing an easy way to separate the experts from the pretenders. Once their incompetence is documented, there is no reason to take them seriously or respond to any of their taunts. If they want to make fools of themselves, so what? Everyone will have a good laugh.

HA HA HA HA

schroedinger's cat said: Here is your answer: let's suppose the atoms are at absolute zero ... what we see is the atoms have just one microstate, that is one arrangement of the atoms on particular energy levels. No system of atoms above zero kelvin has any order - check out a guy named Max Planck to get straight. Now explain to everyone that your mental exercise has nothing to do with how life might have been originated and just put here as a ruse to sell the potential for a materialist origin of life when no such model exists. You materialists have no shame. You have faith is something that does not exist yet you believe it regardless of the lack of evidence for your beliefs. You are happy to guess as opposed to know. Damage to science you all are. Why are guesses by a materialist better than a guess by a creationist? I don't know the origin of life and how it came about and I know you don't know either. Pretending you have an answer just shows a deep level of deception on your part, a pattern that repeats all down the materialist team. You all hate God so materialism must be true. What bozos you are.

schroedinger's cat said: I was quick to point out that I don't how a random set of molecules under unsupervised conditions became a joshua tree that resists the drift towards maximum entropy for 2,000 years. I don't propose to know the answer. I also know that you don't know the answer either.

So why not supply the answer how it happened. Inquiring minds want to know the answer. Like there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you after you post the answer right here at Pandas Thumb.

schroedinger's cat said: I was quick to point out that I don't how a random set of molecules under unsupervised conditions became a joshua tree that resists the drift towards maximum entropy for 2,000 years. I don't propose to know the answer. I also know that you don't know the answer either.

Henry said: I can't give you a timeframe when all ten will get done. If the second law of thermodynamics is not an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature, is there any universal principle of decay in nature? If so, what is it called?

schroedinger's cat said: I would ask the botanist who looks at me funny to explain how any given set of molecules went from not being able to resist the drift to maximum entropy in a very short period of time to become a set of molecules that can resist the drift to maximum entropy for 2,000 years.

I don't demand anything. You pick whatever set of molecules you wish (let's also agree to unsupervised conditions) and demonstrate what happened.

Since there is no evidence God did it or that materialism can explain life then that limits my beliefs to those of the agnostic - we just don't know - one way or the other.

Materialism should be followed if it supplies an answer,

the point I am making about origins and materialism is that materialism offers no better solution for origins than does creationism. So why place one faith above another?

Limit your beliefs in science to the evidence that supports it.

schroedinger's cat said: I was quick to point out that I don't how a random set of molecules under unsupervised conditions became a joshua tree that resists the drift towards maximum entropy for 2,000 years.

DS said: So Joe, Fattest meme and the dead cat can't answer the simple questions. Good to know. We always knew that they had no training, experience or degrees in any relevant fields, now we know why. Thanks Mike, for providing an easy way to separate the experts from the pretenders. Once their incompetence is documented, there is no reason to take them seriously or respond to any of their taunts. If they want to make fools of themselves, so what? Everyone will have a good laugh.

Henry said: [On answering Mike Elzinga's entropy quiz.] I can't give you a timeframe when all ten will get done.

IBIG said: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/nave-html/faithpathh/Stravropoulos.html

IBIG said to Mike: "Mike I am surprised at your ignorance, I thought you were such an expert. Okay let me ask you if these are examples of a decrease in entropy in living organisms." "1. A fertilized egg divides into thousands of cells to form an embryo. ( is this an example of decreased entropy)?" "2. A protein is assembled from individual amino acids by a ribosome (is this an example of decreased entropy)?"

I find it interesting that so many of our trolls find it necessary to take the argument off to the Origin Of Life as quickly as possible. Now the arguments of Granville Sewell are not about the Origin Of Life -- they assert (as far as anyone can tell) that there is a contradiction between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the evolution of life after the OOL. If it could be shown that the only contradiction was at the moment of the OOL, that would deflate Sewell's argument considerably.

Nevertheless the trolls keep going there. Of course as much less is known about the OOL than about subsequent changes, it is a convenient place to go. This strategy might be called OTOOLE, Off To Origin Of Life, Everyone!

It is also used to massively confuse arguments about ordinary evolution. The argument goes like this:

C: There is no way anyone can explain how David Copperfield came to be!

E: Well, Charles Dickens [insert discussion of literary history here]

C: But it was printed, with a printing press! Using an alphabet! You have totally failed to explain how the alphabet and the first printing press originated! I win!

This is analogous to what our anti-evolutionary-biology trolls do when they talk about there being no explanation for the "information contained in DNA" (which is like the particular string of words that make up David Copperfield). Then when natural selection is pointed out to them, they do an OTOOLE and start talking about there being no explanation for the origin of the DNA molecule and the coding machinery (which is like the alphabet and the printing press).

It shouldn't take much effort to see that these are two different questions (the OOL and subsequent evolution), just like the alphabet-and-printing-press and the writing of the particular words in David Copperfield.

Our trolls have to be asked: what arguments do you have that there is some contradiction between the 2nd Law and the processes of evolution that occur once there is life existing and reproducing?

I am not holding my breath on this one.

Joe Felsenstein said: Our trolls have to be asked: what arguments do you have that there is some contradiction between the 2nd Law and the processes of evolution that occur once there is life existing and reproducing?

Joe Felsenstein said: I find it interesting that so many of our trolls find it necessary to take the argument off to the Origin Of Life as quickly as possible.

This is analogous to what our anti-evolutionary-biology trolls do when they talk about there being no explanation for the "information contained in DNA" (which is like the particular string of words that make up David Copperfield). Then when natural selection is pointed out to them, they do an OTOOLE and start talking about there being no explanation for the origin of the DNA molecule and the coding machinery (which is like the alphabet and the printing press).

Our trolls have to be asked: what arguments do you have that there is some contradiction between the 2nd Law and the processes of evolution that occur once there is life existing and reproducing?I am not holding my breath on this one.

Joe Felsenstein said: It shouldn't take much effort to see that these are two different questions (the OOL and subsequent evolution), just like the alphabet-and-printing-press and the writing of the particular words in David Copperfield. Our trolls have to be asked: what arguments do you have that there is some contradiction between the 2nd Law and the processes of evolution that occur once there is life existing and reproducing? I am not holding my breath on this one.

Atheistoclast said: Bullshitting again.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Joe Felsenstein said: I find it interesting that so many of our trolls find it necessary to take the argument off to the Origin Of Life as quickly as possible. Now the arguments of Granville Sewell are not about the Origin Of Life -- they assert (as far as anyone can tell) that there is a contradiction between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the evolution of life after the OOL. If it could be shown that the only contradiction was at the moment of the OOL, that would deflate Sewell's argument considerably.

The "compensation" counter-argument was produced by people who generalized the model equation for closed systems, but forgot to generalize the equation for open systems. Both equations are only valid for our simple models, where it is assumed that only heat conduction or diffusion is going on; naturally, in more complex situations, the laws of probability do not make such simple predictions.

Joe Felsenstein said: I find it interesting that so many of our trolls find it necessary to take the argument off to the Origin Of Life as quickly as possible. Now the arguments of Granville Sewell are not about the Origin Of Life -- they assert (as far as anyone can tell) that there is a contradiction between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the evolution of life after the OOL. If it could be shown that the only contradiction was at the moment of the OOL, that would deflate Sewell's argument considerably. Nevertheless the trolls keep going there. Of course as much less is known about the OOL than about subsequent changes, it is a convenient place to go. This strategy might be called OTOOLE, Off To Origin Of Life, Everyone! It is also used to massively confuse arguments about ordinary evolution. The argument goes like this: C: There is no way anyone can explain how David Copperfield came to be! E: Well, Charles Dickens [insert discussion of literary history here] C: But it was printed, with a printing press! Using an alphabet! You have totally failed to explain how the alphabet and the first printing press originated! I win! This is analogous to what our anti-evolutionary-biology trolls do when they talk about there being no explanation for the "information contained in DNA" (which is like the particular string of words that make up David Copperfield). Then when natural selection is pointed out to them, they do an OTOOLE and start talking about there being no explanation for the origin of the DNA molecule and the coding machinery (which is like the alphabet and the printing press). It shouldn't take much effort to see that these are two different questions (the OOL and subsequent evolution), just like the alphabet-and-printing-press and the writing of the particular words in David Copperfield. Our trolls have to be asked: what arguments do you have that there is some contradiction between the 2nd Law and the processes of evolution that occur once there is life existing and reproducing? I am not holding my breath on this one.

IBelieveInGod said: [Blah blah blah]

SWT said: I just took another look at Sewell's withdrawn AML paper. I think Sewell does think his argument applies both to abiogenesis and biological evolution. By the way, I don't know how I missed this gem in previous readings of that paper:

The "compensation" counter-argument was produced by people who generalized the model equation for closed systems, but forgot to generalize the equation for open systems. Both equations are only valid for our simple models, where it is assumed that only heat conduction or diffusion is going on; naturally, in more complex situations, the laws of probability do not make such simple predictions.

Sewell has clearly either not read or not understood the basic derivation of the entropy production equation (of which his Eq. (3) is a simplified version). For those of you who don't have your copy of deGroot and Mazur handy, the equation was derived for an open system with the possibility of simultaneous momentum, heat, and mass transfer as well as chemical reactions. In other words, it is everything Sewell says it isn't. Color me shocked.

IBelieveInGod said: ...evolutionists...

...will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, and that evolution is separate from the origin of life.

But, if one...

...is to claim that... there was no intelligent designer, no God...

...then one would then have to explain how life evolved from non-living matter also

, explain how atoms arranged themselves into such complex organic molecules, and were so amazingly ordered as to start replicating, and developed a metabolism, and all while without purpose, a highly unlikely event, one that has never been observed even under the most scientific experiments. It is said that it couldn't happen today, but somehow it happened in the distant past.

IBelieveInGod said: if life couldn't have started because of SLOT, then evolution is a moot point.

I don't believe there is anyway that novel complex morphological structures could have evolved by mutation and natural selection alone, that is where I believe SLOT becomes a problem for Darwinian evolution.

More mutations are harmful than are beneficial, clearly you have to admit that this is a problem for evolution, especially when considering complex morphological structures, such as limbs, eyes, ears, etc...

IBelieveInGod said: Joe, I find it puzzling that evolutionists will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, and that evolution is separate from the origin of life.

But, if one is to claim that all life evolved and that there was no intelligent designer, no God, then one would then have to explain how life evolved from non-living matter also, explain how atoms arranged themselves into such complex organic molecules, and were so amazingly ordered as to start replicating, and developed a metabolism, and all while without purpose, a highly unlikely event, one that has never been observed even under the most scientific experiments.

It is said that it couldn't happen today, but somehow it happened in the distant past.

blahblahblahI don't care that they're different questionsblahblahblahblahmicroevolution is magically different from macroevolutionblahblahblahblahblahis a problem for Darwinian evolution because I say soblahblahblah

Off-topic, I know, but 'cat is another example of how corrosive ignorance of science is correlated with corrosive ignorance of history, and separately also correlated with totally unfounded assumptions of competence in these areas and with far right wing politics.

IBelieveInGod said: Joe, I find it puzzling that evolutionists will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, and that evolution is separate from the origin of life.

Scott F said: Just because we don't know how you got to San Diego, does not mean that it is impossible for you to walk from San Diego to Seattle. Comprende?

Scott F said:

IBelieveInGod said: Joe, I find it puzzling that evolutionists will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, and that evolution is separate from the origin of life.

It has been said before (sort of), that micro- versus macro- evolution is the difference between walking across the street in San Diego, and walking from San Diego to Seattle. Evolution posits that, given that we can walk across the street in San Diego, then given enough steps, enough shoes, and enough time, we can walk from San Diego to Seattle. It's a lot of steps, but they're all the same kind of steps. Now, if you are asking how we got from Tijuana to San Diego, that's a different question. So, Evolution explains how you can get from San Diego to Los Angeles, LA to Santa Barbara, SB to San Francisco, etc, etc, to Seattle, all by taking small walking steps. Evolution does not explain how you got to San Diego without a passport in the first place. Just because we don't know how you got to San Diego, does not mean that it is impossible for you to walk from San Diego to Seattle. Comprende?

Joe, Mike, phhht, DS, SWT, Eric, apokryltaros, Scott F. et al.

Thank you. This is a great thread.

My young daughter just recommended IBIG, Theistoclast, Henry and, dead cat start with Myth Busters to learn some basic science and critical thinking skills as well as to learn how people can be mislead by myths.

What part of the Earth System is an open system don't they get?

This suggests an interesting argument for Scientific Storkism.

I find it puzzling that reproductionists (those who don't accept Intelligent Delivery) will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with reproduction, and that reproduction is separate from the origin of life. But, if one is to claim that all life reproduced and that there was no intelligent designer, no God, then one would then have to explain how life reproduced from non-living matter also, explain how atoms arranged themselves into such complex organic molecules, and were so amazingly ordered as to start replicating, and developed a metabolism … (At this point, the original is descending into self-parody and worse, so I find no need to continue.)

IBelieveInGod said: Joe, I find it puzzling that evolutionists will claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, and that evolution is separate from the origin of life. But, if one is to claim that all life evolved and that there was no intelligent designer, no God, then one would then have to explain how life evolved from non-living matter also, explain how atoms arranged themselves into such complex organic molecules, and were so amazingly ordered as to start replicating, and developed a metabolism, and all while without purpose, a highly unlikely event, one that has never been observed even under the most scientific experiments. It is said that it couldn't happen today, but somehow it happened in the distant past. So, I don't really think that they are two different questions at all, if life couldn't have started because of SLOT, then evolution is a moot point. I believe in micro-evolution (minor changes and adaptations within species) which are the only changes that have ever been observed, but I don't accept particles to man evolution. I don't believe there is anyway that novel complex morphological structures could have evolved by mutation and natural selection alone, that is where I believe SLOT becomes a problem for Darwinian evolution. More mutations are harmful than are beneficial, clearly you have to admit that this is a problem for evolution, especially when considering complex morphological structures, such as limbs, eyes, ears, etc...

Rob said: What part of the Earth System is an open system don't they get?

Why do we have to waste time with creationists? They just cannot accept that the universe is so simple: Nothing can happen without expending energy. With energy and matter being two sides of the same coin; nothing ever can enter or disappear from the universe, the only way anythting can happen is by entropy. Violating entropy would be the proverbial free lunch: Spending energy and keeping it too.

Not in this universe.

Atheistoclast said: You can't hope to get any sense from him any more than you can hope to extract blood out of a stone.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

eric said:

Rob said: What part of the Earth System is an open system don't they get?

I think they do get it; this is why you see most all creationists (and folks like Cat) switching back and forth freely between the "its thermodynamically impossible" argument and the "its highly improbable" argument. They posit its physically impossible. They listen to the arguments about why its physically possible. They understand them. They switch arguments to, 'okay it may be possible but its highly unlikely.' Once they think the people they've been talking to forgot what argument they started with,* they go back to the 'its physically impossible' argument again. As to why they think this will work when we can link back to their earlier "its impossible" posts, like this, well, that's a question that baffles me too. *I suppose its possible that after a 1-2 day period they themselves forget all of the information people told them, making their switch back a 'sincere' act rather than a deceptive one. But I prefer not to attribute to people - even my conversational opponents - such deep stupidity as this would imply.

Rolf said: Why do we have to waste time with creationists?

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Obviously I'm not trying to control anyone else's behavior. I have certainly succumbed to the appeal of rhetorically wielding a clue stick against the empty skulls of the anti-science nitwits. I just no longer think it's useful and am wondering if there are better ways to counter their nonsense.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Perhaps rather than wasting further time casting pearls of science before the swine of creationists, such material could become front page posts. That would preserve the benefits of debating the willfully ignorant without rewarding them with the attention they so desperately crave.

I just no longer think it's useful and am wondering if there are better ways to counter their nonsense.

An observation about our present trolls - perhaps Mike can elucidate the historical context all the way back to Morris and Gish,

IBIG 'knows' what entropy is, even if he can't define it rigorously.

He 'knows' that evolution violates 2LOT.

He knows the words of the 2LOT even if he can't do the math, and he molds those words to suit his imagined reality.

He thinks all of our insistence on formulas and definitions has come after the establishment of the 2LOT, and is therefore irrelevant.

He doesn't realize, and will never accept, that it's the other way around -

First came the observation that heat flows from hot things to cold things, without outside interference.

Next came Clausius' definition of the change in entropy (integral of differential of heat absorbed divided by absolute temperature).

Last came the 2LOT (total net entropy in a closed system either remains the same or increases).

They have it backwards - Law (from authority) first, then go seek evidence. That's how they do 'science'.

eric said:

schroedinger's cat said: You materialists are making a priori assumptions that prevent you from dealing with evidence. You need to explain how life came to feed on negative entropy and you haven't

Just to be clear, entropy is not a substance. Entropy is a description of how energy is divided among possible states. Take a system in which the energy is in a few states, and put it in contact with a different system with more available states, and the energy in system 1 will most likely flow into system 2 based on the laws of physics and chemistry. No "feeding apparatus" is needed.

The only correct intellectual position is to admit you materialists don't know the origin of life - agnostic - and not keep knocking creationists. Their answer is a guess just like your answer is a guess - an a priori assumption.

We don't know the exact, specific sequence of events, but you whitewash over an enormous and critical difference between the two positions: science has empirically, observed and confirmed all the processes needed for abiogenesis. No one, in thousands of years, has ever confirmed any Godly design process. So, one is a hypothesis that a mechanistic process consistent with a wealth of observed, empirical evidence did it. The other is a hypothesis that some never-observed, never-quantified, non-mechanistic magic did it. Do you think these are equivalent in believability?

Life stored information and fed on negative entropy *of the thermodynamic type* pretty much at the time and you don't know how either event happened and you can't reproduce it.

Can't reproduce it?!? This is Chem 101 stuff. I suggest you: (1) look up some standard molar entropys of formation (S0) for various simple organic compounds (2) write down some simple formation reactions for those compounds. (3) calculate delta S0, the standard entropy of reaction. (S0 products - S0 reactants) (4) note that for any non-zero delta S, either the formation reaction or the reverse will reproduce the effect you claim we can't reproduce. When delta S0 for formation is positive, the backward reaction refutes you. When its negative, the forward reaction refutes you.

schroedinger's cat said: If you take a bite out of an apple is it still an apple or not an apple? You put your wet laundry in a drier and when the cycle is finished you take out your dry laundry. What is in the lint filter?

schroedinger's cat said: You put your wet laundry in a drier and when the cycle is finished you take out your dry laundry. What is in the lint filter?

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Mike Elzinga said: Schroedinger’s [sic] cat is dead; flatlined. Furthermore, he hasn’t looked at any of the materials about entropy and the second law posted here an in the links to other discussions. This cat needs to learn how to use the litter box instead of just randomly flinging his feces. Erwin Schrödinger’s lectures - delivered under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin in February 1943 - were his speculations about what the central reproductive unit of life might look like. He got the fact that it was a quasicrystal right. Some of his other speculations lead researchers to the methods used to uncover this fact. But he also got a number of things wrong; and his thermodynamic speculations were fuzzy and confused at best. But isn’t it just like ID/creationists to go selectively pick out of the historical, public pronouncements of scientists speculating about the frontiers of scientific research those speculations that turned out to be wrong. Creationists not only quote-mine the literature, but they pass it off as the current scientific understanding. And if that is pointed out to them, they turn around and argue that they should be free to speculate in the public schools as well. Well, first of all,ç are not scientists; secondly, they don’t know any science; thirdly, they are saturated with pseudo-science bent to accommodate sectarian dogma; and forth they know nothing about the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

schroedinger's cat said: Squeeze a bit of toothpaste out of a tube of toothpaste -- what is left? Is it still a tube of toothpaste or not a tube of toothpaste?

prongs said: They have it backwards - Law (from authority) first, then go seek evidence. That's how they do 'science'.

Please return to the topic. I enjoy hearing about toothpaste and woodchucks, but we should stay away from Peter Piper and how he picked a peck of pickled peppers.

The topic is whether Granville Sewell's arguments that evolution is in contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics are valid (you can see that topic right there in the original post).

So ... are we all agreed that Sewell's arguments are toast?

(Please, no discussions of tasty kinds of toast).

I've been lurking here for a couple of years and finally decided to leave a comment. I've jumped around on this thread, so if someone else has brought this up I apologize.

It seems to me that every biochemical reaction I have ever studied (thousands?) and AFAIK every biochemical reaction ever elucidated has not violated SLOT. Since life as we know it is made of these biochemical reactions, the creationist claim that life violates SLOT implies that some of these reactions defy SLOT. Can they produce one biochemical reaction that defies SLOT? It seems illogical to believe that there are biochemical reactions that defy SLOT when of the tens of thousands or more of the biochemical reactions studied to date have not.

In fact that is a testable hypothesis for Intelligent Design. ID predicts that some (even one) biochemical reaction defies SLOT. Can the creationists here name one reaction that deifes slot? Is the Descovery Institute working on this?

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life? Fuzzy entropy does ... in this entropy case information is defined as uncertainty.

Joe Felsenstein said: Please return to the topic. I enjoy hearing about toothpaste and woodchucks, but we should stay away from Peter Piper and how he picked a peck of pickled peppers. The topic is whether Granville Sewell's arguments that evolution is in contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics are valid (you can see that topic right there in the original post). So ... are we all agreed that Sewell's arguments are toast? (Please, no discussions of tasty kinds of toast).

apokryltaros said: It's very telling how none of the Creationist trolls here, Atheistoclast, Schroedinger's cat, or IBelieveInGod are even interested in discussing, let alone interested in explaining how or why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is supposed to magically prohibit evolution from magically occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God, er, the Intelligent Designer.

Joe Felsenstein said:

schroedinger's cat said: ... I've talked to a key leader in bioinformatics about the origin of information in DNA and the best he could do is say is had something to do with self-organization and snowflakes. We see a lot of snowflakes in the winter but not that many evidences of new life popping into existence by self-organization. So no one know how to explain where information in DNA comes from. An associate is doing a SETI type deal to figure out how it might have happened but your claim that something in "biophysics" in the last 50 years explains the actual process where information got instilled into DNA is a lie on your part. I admit 100% I have no idea how it got there. But you don't know either and no one does. ... All your prejudice coming out shows you favor a priori assumptions over reliance on evidence.

On this point (the origin of information in DNA) I would be curious to know why "schroedinger's cat" thinks there is a problem. If someone alleged to be "a key leader in bioinformatics" gave a fatuous answer (or is asserted to have given it) that is their problem. But the answer is actually simple: the particular sequences we see have information that makes the organism well adapted because they were selected (by natural selection). I think I have some credentials in bioinformatics too, and that is my assertion. Is SC perhaps thinking that William Dembski's arguments have shown that one cannot get Complex Specified Information in DNA by natural selection? (In particular Dembski's Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information, or his No Free Lunch argument?). I have an article arguing that Dembski's arguments are wrong. If SC has any disagreement with my conclusions, I hope SC will explain why, in detail. (And please note, lest we get distracted, that the issue is not how DNA or the machinery that replicates it or expresses it got started, it is how the particular well-adapted sequences that we see in real organisms got chosen out of all possible sequences).

There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

eric said:

apokryltaros said: It's very telling how none of the Creationist trolls here, Atheistoclast, Schroedinger's cat, or IBelieveInGod are even interested in discussing, let alone interested in explaining how or why the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is supposed to magically prohibit evolution from magically occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God, er, the Intelligent Designer.

Well, IBIG said here and here that any reduction in entropy requires complex machinery that only living things have. Even though its not focused on evolution per se, I'd count this as a fairly classic ID 2nd law argument; nature can't do it on its own.

Cat seems more into some sort of PoMo, "if we don't know for absolute certainty how something happened, every suggested idea about how it happened is equally right" argument.

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

I do know when I see a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with how DNA originated in the first place. You are Just running cover for the fact that materialism can't explain the origins of life.

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Your fairy tale materialist belief system can't explain how a joshua tree comes into existence. Your materialist "pseudo-science" can't explain how unsupervised processes created life -> back at you. I fully admit I don't know. This is the answer honest people should give. Only correct answer as of now. Not a creationist and not a materialist.

Did you forget the test? Got lost somewhere? Dog ate it? Here it is again.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

schroedinger's cat said: Are the atoms packed in carbon nanotubes? Would the size of the carbon nanotubes matter?

SWT said:

schroedinger's cat said:

alicejohn said: IBIG, you have me completely confused about the point you are trying to make. Could you please answer the following questions? For all four questions, set the boundary of the system at the outer surface of the tree (the boundary will change as the tree grows and dies). 1. Assume a viable seed drops from a tree. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT? 2. For as long as it takes the tree to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT? 3. Assume a viable tree seed drops from a tree. But this time the seed has a neutral genetic mutation that does not affect the ability of the tree to survive in the environment. From the time the seed sprouts until the tree dies many years later, does the tree violate the SLOT? 4. For as long as it takes the tree with the mutation to decompose after it dies, does the tree violate the SLOT? Thanks for your attention. Your answers will help.

alicejohn: Anything that is not alive will move towards maximum entropy significantly faster than a joshua tree that lives 2,000 years. That is how to tell the difference between something alive and not alive. Ask all the bozo materialists here how the joshua tree got that capability and watch them dance and not answer how.

Embedded in the text you quoted are four questions. Since you took the trouble to quote them, perhaps you'd care to take a shot at answering them as well. Then again, the first sentence of your reply to alicejohn has a significant error, so you might want to take a little time to think your answer through before you post.

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

1. That is no less true of other processes in the world of life, such as reproduction, development, the operation of the adaptive immune system, ... . If that is a reason for doubting evolution, then it is also a reason for doubting reproduction, development, immunity ... . 2. How do you propose that creation or intelligent design accounts for it? Tell us what happens, when and where, what methods and materials are used, what features of the creator(s) or designer(s) enables them to make those sorts of changes in life as it was presented to them, and why the prior state of the world of life didn't have those complex beneficial arrangements.

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said: schrodinger's cat the concern troll is concerned... Not really. It would help clarify things if he were to stop clowning around with his inane questions and explain to us what dead versus living grass have to do with creationists falsely claiming that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically prohibits evolution from occurring. But, he seems more concerned with scolding and shaming us for being evil, stupid materialists than actually discussing anything.

Keep on demanding they answer that question, apokryltaros. The mere fact that they don’t even respond is pretty good evidence that it is a fundamentally uncomfortable question for them. They insist on getting the science wrong; but even their pseudo-science can’t answer how “goddidit.” They have to choose either something spooky that they cannot hope to demonstrate, or they can choose the discomfort of having believed Henry Morris for all these years. Fairy tales either way.

Kevin B said:

co said: Excellent example. I myself was going to mention atmospheric reactions in response to SC's inane questioning.

A permanent body of water would be quite sufficient. The water molecules are dissociating into solvated H+ and OH- ions just as fast as the existing ions are getting back together. They've been doing this as long as there has been liquid water. (Ie since before there were *any* living organisms, not merely longer than the existence of one particular organism!)

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said: Are the atoms packed in carbon nanotubes? Would the size of the carbon nanotubes matter?

By this latest dodge, shall we assume that you have no ability to answer the questions?

schroedinger's cat said:

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

1. That is no less true of other processes in the world of life, such as reproduction, development, the operation of the adaptive immune system, ... . If that is a reason for doubting evolution, then it is also a reason for doubting reproduction, development, immunity ... . 2. How do you propose that creation or intelligent design accounts for it? Tell us what happens, when and where, what methods and materials are used, what features of the creator(s) or designer(s) enables them to make those sorts of changes in life as it was presented to them, and why the prior state of the world of life didn't have those complex beneficial arrangements.

TomS: We can observe "eproduction, development, the operation of the adaptive immune system". No one has observed speciation so it is a belief derived through speculation. We also will never know what Mt Haleakla on Maui looked like a 100,000 years ago but we can guess. So guessing is OK but you need to consider you are still guessing so permit a lot of uncertainty in your think when you ponder evolution.

schroedinger's cat said:

Kevin B said:

co said: Excellent example. I myself was going to mention atmospheric reactions in response to SC's inane questioning.

A permanent body of water would be quite sufficient. The water molecules are dissociating into solvated H+ and OH- ions just as fast as the existing ions are getting back together. They've been doing this as long as there has been liquid water. (Ie since before there were *any* living organisms, not merely longer than the existence of one particular organism!)

The point that differentiates date dissociating and recombining is how long the process takes vs how long a joshua tree takes to reach equilibrium at maximum entropy. What of a life form that never attains equilibrium at maximum entropy? In natural conditions it doesn't take all that long for chemical reactions to reach equilibrium. Which one takes as long as a joshua tree? We will all die long before a young joshua tree - on average.

Joe Felsenstein said: I find it interesting that so many of our trolls find it necessary to take the argument off to the Origin Of Life as quickly as possible.

And by "you should take the phase diagram" I mean "you should take a look at the phase diagram".

schroedinger's cat said:

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

1. That is no less true of other processes in the world of life, such as reproduction, development, the operation of the adaptive immune system, ... . If that is a reason for doubting evolution, then it is also a reason for doubting reproduction, development, immunity ... . 2. How do you propose that creation or intelligent design accounts for it? Tell us what happens, when and where, what methods and materials are used, what features of the creator(s) or designer(s) enables them to make those sorts of changes in life as it was presented to them, and why the prior state of the world of life didn't have those complex beneficial arrangements.

TomS: We can observe "eproduction, development, the operation of the adaptive immune system". No one has observed speciation so it is a belief derived through speculation. We also will never know what Mt Haleakla on Maui looked like a 100,000 years ago but we can guess. So guessing is OK but you need to consider you are still guessing so permit a lot of uncertainty in your think when you ponder evolution.

schroedinger's cat said: Speaking for the trolls or at least me ... I would say that origins of life are not explainable through your belief system.

Rolf said: There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Joe Felsenstein said: So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

Atheistoclast said:

Joe Felsenstein said: So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

No, we have not. You can't talk about evolution without talking about mutation. But you have precluded any discussion here about Sewell's argument on thermodynamics - which is just a conceptual and mathematical framework more than anything else - and that of genetic mutation. Unless you allow us to talk about actual evolution, you can't claim we have conceded anything at all. Not that I'm surprised by your victory claims.

Atheistoclast said: You can't talk about evolution without talking about mutation. But you have precluded any discussion here about Sewell's argument on thermodynamics - which is just a conceptual and mathematical framework more than anything else - and that of genetic mutation. Unless you allow us to talk about actual evolution, you can't claim we have conceded anything at all. Not that I'm surprised by your victory claims.

So Mike Elzinga posts a quiz about entropy to help creationists (and the cat, who is... very carefully not saying what it is) understand what 2LOT actually means.

The response?

"But this has nothing to do with evolution!"

Well, exactly.

QED.

Well played, Mike. :-)

Joe Felsenstein said:

Rolf said: There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Yes. What was the reaction of the trolls to me bringing up their Off To Origin Of Life Everyone (OTOOLE) strategy? Or to me (later) re-emphasizing that we are, after all, discussing Sewell's arguments about biological evolution? It was to re-emphasize that we have to spend our time discussing the OOL, or else to bring up extraneous stuff (DARPA projects, for example). So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

SWT said: By the way, you should take [a look at] the phase diagram for carbon and ponder how long diamonds persist relative to the life span of your much-obsessed-about Joshua tree.

fnxtr said: So Mike Elzinga posts a quiz about entropy to help creationists (and the cat, who is... very carefully not saying what it is) understand what 2LOT actually means. The response? "But this has nothing to do with evolution!" Well, exactly. QED. Well played, Mike. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: The fact that the origin of life issue is being thrown up here suggests that the test has struck a major nerve.

eric said:

Atheistoclast said: You can't talk about evolution without talking about mutation. But you have precluded any discussion here about Sewell's argument on thermodynamics - which is just a conceptual and mathematical framework more than anything else - and that of genetic mutation. Unless you allow us to talk about actual evolution, you can't claim we have conceded anything at all. Not that I'm surprised by your victory claims.

Okay, let's talk actual mutation. The gene defect for sickle-cell anemia is known to be a single nucleotide polymorphism, a switch from GAG to GTG in part of the beta globin gene. Now, presumably, according to you, this would make any mutation from GTG to GAG forbidden because its a "fix" of a genetic problem. It increases complexity, order, reverses degeneracy, improves the organism, blah blah blah, all your creationist buzzwords. Explain to us how the second law of thermodynamics prevents a point mutation converting the sequence GTG to GAG.

I wonder if the creationist trolls think a sudden bifurcation in a stream or a lightning bolt is a defect.

Is it a defect only if the new branch gets aborted or squelched by other phenomena?

Is it not a defect if the new branch develops into something less ephemeral?

Why is a mutation that leads to speciation a defect?

Which is it; a mutation that leads to a dead end or a mutation that leads to a new species? Which mutation is a defect?

Oh, and by the way; in which case is the second law of thermodynamics NOT operating?

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: The fact that the origin of life issue is being thrown up here suggests that the test has struck a major nerve.

As Joe said, it implies a huge concession on their part. None of them can clearly articulate how the 2LOT prevents existing life from mutating into new species. Or they know it doesn't. Either way, asking how 2LOT prevents existing organisms from evolving seems to provoke an immediate change of subject.

Joe Felsenstein said: I find it interesting that so many of our trolls find it necessary to take the argument off to the Origin Of Life as quickly as possible. Now the arguments of Granville Sewell are not about the Origin Of Life -- they assert (as far as anyone can tell) that there is a contradiction between the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the evolution of life after the OOL. If it could be shown that the only contradiction was at the moment of the OOL, that would deflate Sewell's argument considerably. Nevertheless the trolls keep going there. Of course as much less is known about the OOL than about subsequent changes, it is a convenient place to go. This strategy might be called OTOOLE, Off To Origin Of Life, Everyone!

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as uncertainty. Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Here is a hint; the topic of this thread can be found way up at the top of the page. I can pretty much assume that if you can’t even find that on your own, there is no way you would know anything about entropy or what is even being discussed here. As a spoiled, narcissistic preadolescent, you evidently spend your entire life whining for attention as the world passes you by. By the way, I have a growing suspicion that soon you may be banished to the Bathroom Wall if you continue to play this game.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as the measure of uncertainty. "A fuzzy set's entropy (which could be thought of as its "ambiguity") is defined by the number of violations of the law of non-contradiction compared with the number of violations of the excluded middle. Entropy is zero when both laws hold, is maximum in the center of the hypercube. Alternatively, a fuzzy set's entropy can be defined as a measure of how a set is a subset of itself." http://www.scaruffi.com/mind/kosko.html - a review of Bart Kosko's Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems (Prentice Hall, 1992) Darpa is researching how to create a life form that lives forever -> never reaches maximum entropy. Information and thermodynamic. Now having trumped you once more ... are you willing to admit that your test has nothing to do with the chemical reactions that originated life?

phhht said:

schroedinger's cat said: If you take a bite out of an apple is it still an apple or not an apple? You put your wet laundry in a drier and when the cycle is finished you take out your dry laundry. What is in the lint filter?

Why is there air? Can an all-powerful god make a rock so heavy he can't move it? And how about Abe Lincoln's axe? phhht

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as uncertainty. Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Here is a hint; the topic of this thread can be found way up at the top of the page. I can pretty much assume that if you can’t even find that on your own, there is no way you would know anything about entropy or what is even being discussed here. As a spoiled, narcissistic preadolescent, you evidently spend your entire life whining for attention as the world passes you by. By the way, I have a growing suspicion that soon you may be banished to the Bathroom Wall if you continue to play this game.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as the measure of uncertainty. "A fuzzy set's entropy (which could be thought of as its "ambiguity") is defined by the number of violations of the law of non-contradiction compared with the number of violations of the excluded middle. Entropy is zero when both laws hold, is maximum in the center of the hypercube. Alternatively, a fuzzy set's entropy can be defined as a measure of how a set is a subset of itself." http://www.scaruffi.com/mind/kosko.html - a review of Bart Kosko's Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems (Prentice Hall, 1992) Darpa is researching how to create a life form that lives forever -> never reaches maximum entropy. Information and thermodynamic. Now having trumped you once more ... are you willing to admit that your test has nothing to do with the chemical reactions that originated life?

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and how would your claim that a reversal from GTG to GAG be a mutation?

Joe Felsenstein said:

Rolf said: There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Yes. What was the reaction of the trolls to me bringing up their Off To Origin Of Life Everyone (OTOOLE) strategy? Or to me (later) re-emphasizing that we are, after all, discussing Sewell's arguments about biological evolution? It was to re-emphasize that we have to spend our time discussing the OOL, or else to bring up extraneous stuff (DARPA projects, for example). So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and how would your claim that a reversal from GTG to GAG be a mutation?

Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

schroedinger's cat said: Mike: Entropy can be defined as the measure of uncertainty. "A fuzzy set's entropy (which could be thought of as its "ambiguity") is defined by the number of violations of the law of non-contradiction compared with the number of violations of the excluded middle. Entropy is zero when both laws hold, is maximum in the center of the hypercube. Alternatively, a fuzzy set's entropy can be defined as a measure of how a set is a subset of itself." http://www.scaruffi.com/mind/kosko.html - a review of Bart Kosko's Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems (Prentice Hall, 1992) Darpa is researching how to create a life form that lives forever -> never reaches maximum entropy. Information and thermodynamic. Now having trumped you once more ... are you willing to admit that your test has nothing to do with the chemical reactions that originated life?

SWT said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as uncertainty. Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Here is a hint; the topic of this thread can be found way up at the top of the page. I can pretty much assume that if you can’t even find that on your own, there is no way you would know anything about entropy or what is even being discussed here. As a spoiled, narcissistic preadolescent, you evidently spend your entire life whining for attention as the world passes you by. By the way, I have a growing suspicion that soon you may be banished to the Bathroom Wall if you continue to play this game.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as the measure of uncertainty. "A fuzzy set's entropy (which could be thought of as its "ambiguity") is defined by the number of violations of the law of non-contradiction compared with the number of violations of the excluded middle. Entropy is zero when both laws hold, is maximum in the center of the hypercube. Alternatively, a fuzzy set's entropy can be defined as a measure of how a set is a subset of itself." http://www.scaruffi.com/mind/kosko.html - a review of Bart Kosko's Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems (Prentice Hall, 1992) Darpa is researching how to create a life form that lives forever -> never reaches maximum entropy. Information and thermodynamic. Now having trumped you once more ... are you willing to admit that your test has nothing to do with the chemical reactions that originated life?

Except that this discussion is about the application of the second law of thermodynamics, not about set theory. Why are you afraid to address an extremely simple test about thermodynamics?

We are talking about the real universe here; not some arbitrary set of rules on some arbitrary set of objects.

Oh dear God. Here we go with the ABSOLUTES argument again.

Classical thermodynamics : ΔS = ΔQ/ΔT If an amount of heat ΔQ leaves a system at temperature T_higher and enters the environment at a temperature T_lower, then the change in entropy is ΔS = - ΔQ/T_higher + ΔQ/T_lower. Dividing the same amount of heat by a smaller temperature gives a larger number. Therefore the entropy lost by the system is smaller than the entropy gained by the environment. In other words, the overall entropy has increased.

Entropy in statistical mechanics : S = k_B ln Ω Where Ω is the number of accessible energy microstates consistent the macroscopic state of the system. More generally, S = - k_B Σ₁^Ωp_jlnp_j where p_j is the probability that the system is in the jth microstate. If all microstates are equally probable, p_j = 1/Ω and this formula reduces to the one above. If all the constituents of the system are allowed to interact and exchange energy with each other (matter interacts with matter), then in and isolated system, those probabilities will become equal and the expression will become maximized. This is a little exercise everyone should do to demonstrate to themselves the meaning of entropy tending toward a maximum in an ISOLATED system, provided that the constituents can exchange energy. I am not going to tell you how to do this little exercise. Some may want to use calculus; others may want to just fiddle with the numbers. Figure it out according to your level of mathematical ability.

… We obtain the equation ∫dQ/T = S - S₀ which, while somewhat differently arranged, is the same as that which was formerly used to determine S. If we wish to designate S by a proper name we can say of it that it is the transformation content of the body, in the same way that we say of the quantity U that it is the heat and work content of the body. However, since I think it is better to take the names of such quantities as these, which are important for science, from the ancient languages, so that they can be introduced without change into all the modern languages, I propose to name the magnitude S the entropy of the body, from the Greek word η τροπη, a transformation. I have intentionally formed the word entropy so as to be as similar as possible to the word energy, since both these quantities, which are to be known by these names, are so nearly related to each other in their physical significance that a certain similarity in their names seemed to me advantageous. …

The very terms themselves express contradictory concepts. The word "evolution" is of course derived from a Latin word meaning "out-rolling". The picture is of an outward-progressing spiral, an unrolling from an infinitesimal beginning through ever broadening circles, until finally all reality is embraced within. "Entropy," on the other hand, means literally "in-turning." It is derived from the two Greek words en (meaning "in") and trope (meaning "turning"). The concept is of something spiraling inward upon itself, exactly the opposite concept to "evolution." Evolution is change outward and upward, entropy is change inward and downward.

You're never going to tell us your "theory", are you, kitty cat.

Materialists are wrong. Creationists are wrong.
So who's right? Let me guess... you?

Okay, I give up. Where does the evidence lead? Invisible holograms? Space aliens?

Timecube?

schroedinger's cat said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

Rolf said: There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Yes. What was the reaction of the trolls to me bringing up their Off To Origin Of Life Everyone (OTOOLE) strategy? Or to me (later) re-emphasizing that we are, after all, discussing Sewell's arguments about biological evolution? It was to re-emphasize that we have to spend our time discussing the OOL, or else to bring up extraneous stuff (DARPA projects, for example). So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

Joe: The idea of uncertainty at the origins applies to both thermodynamics and information and the principle of entropy (uncertainty) applies in both areas in a discussion of origins. Molecules making up life are vastly more ordered than other molecules and ID folks say that order is evidence of intelligent design. I don't see any evidence that knocks Sewell out of the box so I am not sure why you object to his POV. Also in another message you mentioned you didn't like the discuss touching on a Darpa project that would create a life form that would live forever. Seems like knowing how something can be invented from scratch that never dies one ups whatever caused life. Thus 100% on point. Also ... Mike Elzinga has repeatedly said I don't understand concepts I present. So I presented a working knowledge of the principle of fuzzy logic to demonstrate: 1. why materialists can't understand the very same issues that first persuaded Francis Crick that life on earth could not start from any possible natural cause. 2. To demonstrate that multivalent notions applies to the entropy of life - fuzzy entropy. Place fuzzy entropy in google. See for yourself. Thus to me it looks like the ID/creationists are a lot closer to the truth that life does not have a natural origin than materialists. But I would caution ID/creationists that just because no one on the materialist team anywhere anyhow have a clue on origins it does not mean that God Did It. That is the point of multivalent thinking. A set is fuzzy to the extent it defies the law of the excluded middle. Showing up all the materialists here as so shallow and not even aware of this field is just a side benefit. It took some patience to lure Mike into asking me for my definition of entropy and then he got crushed with an idea tons of people already know and use. For instance Japanese brand cars all use fuzzy controllers for cruise control so you don't speed up or slow down going up and down hills. The fuzzy principle has direct application to understanding the origins of life. been around for a while. Only a bozo claims to be a big shot expert and couldn't see this coming. I carefully laid the groundwork. Check mate.

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for,

W. H. Heydt said: ... Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation?

Joe Felsenstein said:

W. H. Heydt said: ... Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation?

No, you don't understand. When normal Hemoglobin Beta changes to sickle-cell hemoglobin, that's a loss of function (actually I think it's still functional, it just crystallizes more under low oxygen concentration). Anyway it's not gain-of-information. When sickle-cell hemoglobin changes to normal hemoglobin, that must be a gain-of-function. But that can't happen. So that must be a mutation that never occurs. For then it would be gain-of-information, and we know that that is impossible. ;-) At least, that's the way these folks think.

Joe Felsenstein said:

W. H. Heydt said: ... Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation?

No, you don't understand. When normal Hemoglobin Beta changes to sickle-cell hemoglobin, that's a loss of function (actually I think it's still functional, it just crystallizes more under low oxygen concentration). Anyway it's not gain-of-information. When sickle-cell hemoglobin changes to normal hemoglobin, that must be a gain-of-function. But that can't happen. So that must be a mutation that never occurs. For then it would be gain-of-information, and we know that that is impossible. ;-) At least, that's the way these folks think.

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and how would your claim that a reversal from GTG to GAG be a mutation?

Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

The problem with your logic is that the mutation was from GAG to GTG, which resulted in the horrible disease of sickle-cell anemia, now where is the increase in information? Where is the benefit from that mutation? Could the reverting from GTG back to GAG actually be considered a mutation?

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and how would your claim that a reversal from GTG to GAG be a mutation?

Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

The problem with your logic is that the mutation was from GAG to GTG, which resulted in the horrible disease of sickle-cell anemia, now where is the increase in information? Where is the benefit from that mutation? Could the reverting from GTG back to GAG actually be considered a mutation?

fnxtr said: You're never going to tell us your "theory", are you, kitty cat. Materialists are wrong. Creationists are wrong. So who's right? Let me guess... you? Okay, I give up. Where does the evidence lead? Invisible holograms? Space aliens? Timecube?

schroedinger's cat said: Actually entropy has a lot of uses so you have chosen only one. Darpa has allocated $6 to program called Biodesign to eliminate the randomness associated with evolution - in an information sense we can think of entropy as uncertainty. Darpa's goal is to program organisms to live indefinitely.

schroedinger's cat: Also in another message you mentioned you didn’t like the discuss touching on a Darpa project that would create a life form that would live forever. Seems like knowing how something can be invented from scratch that never dies one ups whatever caused life. Thus 100% on point.

Joe Felsenstein said: I suspect DARPA is betting their $6 on something else.

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I suspect DARPA is betting their $6 on something else.

Yup; the “nuclear hand granade.” (for $7) ;-) I wonder who they'll get to toss it.

schroedinger's cat said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

Rolf said: There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Yes. What was the reaction of the trolls to me bringing up their Off To Origin Of Life Everyone (OTOOLE) strategy? Or to me (later) re-emphasizing that we are, after all, discussing Sewell's arguments about biological evolution? It was to re-emphasize that we have to spend our time discussing the OOL, or else to bring up extraneous stuff (DARPA projects, for example). So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

Joe: The idea of uncertainty at the origins applies to both thermodynamics and information and the principle of entropy (uncertainty) applies in both areas in a discussion of origins. Molecules making up life are vastly more ordered than other molecules and ID folks say that order is evidence of intelligent design. I don't see any evidence that knocks Sewell out of the box so I am not sure why you object to his POV. Also in another message you mentioned you didn't like the discuss touching on a Darpa project that would create a life form that would live forever. Seems like knowing how something can be invented from scratch that never dies one ups whatever caused life. Thus 100% on point. Also ... Mike Elzinga has repeatedly said I don't understand concepts I present. So I presented a working knowledge of the principle of fuzzy logic to demonstrate: 1. why materialists can't understand the very same issues that first persuaded Francis Crick that life on earth could not start from any possible natural cause. 2. To demonstrate that multivalent notions applies to the entropy of life - fuzzy entropy. Place fuzzy entropy in google. See for yourself. Thus to me it looks like the ID/creationists are a lot closer to the truth that life does not have a natural origin than materialists. But I would caution ID/creationists that just because no one on the materialist team anywhere anyhow have a clue on origins it does not mean that God Did It. That is the point of multivalent thinking. A set is fuzzy to the extent it defies the law of the excluded middle. Showing up all the materialists here as so shallow and not even aware of this field is just a side benefit. It took some patience to lure Mike into asking me for my definition of entropy and then he got crushed with an idea tons of people already know and use. For instance Japanese brand cars all use fuzzy controllers for cruise control so you don't speed up or slow down going up and down hills. The fuzzy principle has direct application to understanding the origins of life. been around for a while. Only a bozo claims to be a big shot expert and couldn't see this coming. I carefully laid the groundwork. Check mate.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I suspect DARPA is betting their $6 on something else.

Yup; the “nuclear hand granade.” (for $7) ;-) I wonder who they'll get to toss it.

Why would we need such a thing when we already have the spiritually-superior Holy Grenade of Antioch (with the instructions in the Book of Armaments)? "Three shall be the number thou shalt count ..."

Rob said: I am pleased to see Silly Kitty has acknowledged he was check mated.

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and how would your claim that a reversal from GTG to GAG be a mutation?

Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

The problem with your logic is that the mutation was from GAG to GTG, which resulted in the horrible disease of sickle-cell anemia, now where is the increase in information? Where is the benefit from that mutation? Could the reverting from GTG back to GAG actually be considered a mutation?

j. biggs said:

schroedinger's cat said:

TomS said:

IBelieveInGod said: Isn't it true that evolution requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex, yet beneficial arrangements, arrangements ordered as to make molecular machines, new morphological structures, etc...?

1. That is no less true of other processes in the world of life, such as reproduction, development, the operation of the adaptive immune system, ... . If that is a reason for doubting evolution, then it is also a reason for doubting reproduction, development, immunity ... . 2. How do you propose that creation or intelligent design accounts for it? Tell us what happens, when and where, what methods and materials are used, what features of the creator(s) or designer(s) enables them to make those sorts of changes in life as it was presented to them, and why the prior state of the world of life didn't have those complex beneficial arrangements.

TomS: We can observe "eproduction, development, the operation of the adaptive immune system". No one has observed speciation so it is a belief derived through speculation. We also will never know what Mt Haleakla on Maui looked like a 100,000 years ago but we can guess. So guessing is OK but you need to consider you are still guessing so permit a lot of uncertainty in your think when you ponder evolution.

Speciation has been observed multiple times. That link was to a page written over fifteen years ago, and the evidence you say doesn't exist is older than that. No guessing was neccesary, at least not about speciation.

Joe Felsenstein said:

schroedinger's cat: Also in another message you mentioned you didn’t like the discuss touching on a Darpa project that would create a life form that would live forever. Seems like knowing how something can be invented from scratch that never dies one ups whatever caused life. Thus 100% on point.

If DARPA is really hoping to make a life form that would live forever (and with 100% probability of doing so), then DARPA knows nothing of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The project would not only not be worth $6, it would not even be worth $5.95. I could pay for the whole project with the money in my wallet right now but it would be an awfully bad investment. I suspect DARPA is betting their $6 on something else.

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and how would your claim that a reversal from GTG to GAG be a mutation?

Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

The problem with your logic is that the mutation was from GAG to GTG, which resulted in the horrible disease of sickle-cell anemia, now where is the increase in information? Where is the benefit from that mutation? Could the reverting from GTG back to GAG actually be considered a mutation?

I made no claims about information either way. You tried to assert that a heritable change from GAG to GTG was somehow *different* (presumably, thermodynamically or involving the SLOT, or in some undefined "information" way) than a heritable change from GTG to GAG and that--somehow or for some reason--one direction is a mutation and the other isn't. My point was that it's a mutation either way. You may have heard of "random mutations". Well, either change is one. Depending on the environmental conditions (such as the local prevalence of malaria carriers) one of the changes may aid in reproductive success more than the other--thus, differential reproduction or "natural selection" (something else you've probably heard of, even though you don't understand it in spite of the example I've just given you). Note that SLOT doesn't particularly constrain either mutation. Now, if you want to argue that SLOT *does* constrain one or both mutations, then start by doing Mr. Elzinga's quiz to show that you understand entropy and can move on from there. In any case, if you think one direction is a mutation and the other isn't, you need to go back and start with about 5th grade science and work your way forward from there. If you can read at that level, you could always use the collected non-fiction works of Isaac Asimov. His work is a bit dated now (he quit writing a while ago for the obvious reason), but he can get you started. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Rob said: IBIG, You do realize the sickle cell mutation is selected for in malaria dominated regions of the planet because as a heterozygote sickle-cell provides protection from malaria. Why do you think sickle-cell occurs dominantly in groups that come from malaria stricken regions? This is yet another clear example of random mutation and natural selection providing a local reproductive advantage. All that is needed is a single point mutation. Rhetorically, where does the SLOT preclude the mutation of a single nucleotide, from a GAG to GTG? Evolution is verified again!

IBelieveInGod said:

W. H. Heydt said:

IBelieveInGod said: So, sickle cell anemia is a defect, and not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and how would your claim that a reversal from GTG to GAG be a mutation?

Since a heritable change of a base-pair in the DNA is pretty much the definition of a mutation, how can a change from GTG to GAG NOT be a mutation? --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

The problem with your logic is that the mutation was from GAG to GTG, which resulted in the horrible disease of sickle-cell anemia, now where is the increase in information? Where is the benefit from that mutation? Could the reverting from GTG back to GAG actually be considered a mutation?

Sickle-cell anemia is nothing more then an example of natural selection in action, which we all agree does take place, it is observed therefore it is a fact, but this horrible defect is not an example of upward evolution. Let me add that the only ones that really benefit from this defect are the ones who don't inherit from both parents, because they receive the benefit of being resistant to malaria without all of the horrible effects of the disease.

Joe Felsenstein said: I suspect DARPA is betting their $6 on something else.

IBelieveInGod said: [Text where IBIG demonstrates he doesn't understand evolutionary theory omitted to save space]

SWT said: Which is “more ordered,” a gram of liquid water or a gram of mixed liquid water and ice?

IBelieveInGod said: It makes sense if you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect....

IBelieveInGod said: Sickle-cell anemia is nothing more then an example of natural selection in action, which we all agree does take place, it is observed therefore it is a fact, but this horrible defect is not an example of upward evolution.

IBelieveInGod the idiot babbled: Sickle-cell anemia is nothing more then an example of natural selection in action, which we all agree does take place, it is observed therefore it is a fact, but this horrible defect is not an example of upward evolution. Let me add that the only ones that really benefit from this defect are the ones who don't inherit from both parents, because they receive the benefit of being resistant to malaria without all of the horrible effects of the disease.

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Sickle-cell anemia is nothing more then an example of natural selection in action, which we all agree does take place, it is observed therefore it is a fact, but this horrible defect is not an example of upward evolution.

You keep getting my example backwards. You seem to agree that the A to T mutation produces a defect. Reduces CSI, and so on. Okay, then according to you creationists, the reverse mutational process - a mutation from T to A - should be forbidden by the second law. Explain how a T to A mutation is forbidden by the second law.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

IBelieveInGod said: It makes sense if you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect....

Interesting definition of "defect" you have there.

IBelieveInGod said: So would you tell those who have the debilitating disease that it is not a defect, and that it is actually good for them?

IBelieveInGod said:

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

IBelieveInGod said: It makes sense if you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect....

Interesting definition of "defect" you have there.

So would you tell those who have the debilitating disease that it is not a defect, and that it is actually good for them?

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: So would you tell those who have the debilitating disease that it is not a defect, and that it is actually good for them?

I don't care what other adjectives you want to apply to it, its a mutation. The genetic sequence is being changed. You seem to agree that the A to T mutation is a loss of this stuff you creationists think only design can produce. So explain to us why the T to A mutation is forbidden by the second law.

By the way I have never said that mutations were forbidden by the second law, even beneficial mutations aren't forbidden by the second law, and I have never said that they were.

And there you have it folks. Adaptive mutations are not forbidden by the second law, or any other law. So the SLOT poses absolutely no problem for evolution. So IBIGOT and all of his bluster is just blowing smoke out of his favorite orifice. Good to know. Can't these guys ever get their story straight?

DS said: And there you have it folks. Adaptive mutations are not forbidden by the second law, or any other law. So the SLOT poses absolutely no problem for evolution. So IBIGOT and all of his bluster is just blowing smoke out of his favorite orifice. Good to know. Can't these guys ever get their story straight?

And "upward evolution", yet! Sheesh!

You haven't demonstrated how the SLOT is a problem for evolution now have you?

Dave Luckett said: And "upward evolution", yet! Sheesh!

IBelieveInGod said: By the way I have never said that mutations were forbidden by the second law, even beneficial mutations aren't forbidden by the second law, and I have never said that they were.

IBelieveInGod said:

Dave Luckett said: And "upward evolution", yet! Sheesh!

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~stb/doc/evolution_upward_lateral.html

Heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures.

IBelieveInGod said: By the way I have never said that mutations were forbidden by the second law, even beneficial mutations aren't forbidden by the second law, and I have never said that they were. -emphasis added-

Should of course have been "it is up to the creationists to show how and why the reactions required to sustain life and to make evolution possible, are not possible."

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: And there you have it folks. Adaptive mutations are not forbidden by the second law, or any other law. So the SLOT poses absolutely no problem for evolution. So IBIGOT and all of his bluster is just blowing smoke out of his favorite orifice. Good to know. Can't these guys ever get their story straight?

You haven't answered how sickle-cell anemia is an example of upward evolution now have you?

Dave Luckett said: And "upward evolution", yet! Sheesh!

Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. Some mutations alter a gene's DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene. Studies of the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. ^ Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). "Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701572104. PMC 1871816. PMID 17409186

schroedinger's cat said:

Joe Felsenstein said: ... So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

Joe: The idea of uncertainty at the origins applies to both thermodynamics and information and the principle of entropy (uncertainty) applies in both areas in a discussion of origins. Molecules making up life are vastly more ordered than other molecules and ID folks say that order is evidence of intelligent design. I don't see any evidence that knocks Sewell out of the box so I am not sure why you object to his POV. [Irrelevant stuff about DARPA, fuzzy logic etc. snipped] Check mate.

IBelieveInGod said:

Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. Some mutations alter a gene's DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene. Studies of the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. ^ Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). "Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701572104. PMC 1871816. PMID 17409186

IBelieveInGod said:

Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. Some mutations alter a gene's DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene. Studies of the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. ^ Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). "Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701572104. PMC 1871816. PMID 17409186

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Dave Luckett said: And "upward evolution", yet! Sheesh!

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/~stb/doc/evolution_upward_lateral.html

Wow ... you found a quote from a someone in an Electrical and Computer Engineering Department that misrepresents evolutionary theory and genetics. Congratulations.

Joe Felsenstein said: So what I see here is: yes, we have to go Off To the Origin Of Life (OTOOL). SC has no argument to offer that Granville Sewell's argument works after the OOL.

j. biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said:

Changes in DNA caused by mutation can cause errors in protein sequence, creating partially or completely non-functional proteins. To function correctly, each cell depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result. A condition caused by mutations in one or more genes is called a genetic disorder. Some mutations alter a gene's DNA base sequence but do not change the function of the protein made by the gene. Studies of the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. ^ Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). "Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701572104. PMC 1871816. PMID 17409186

So what? When you have a population of thousands of flys most of them won't have a deletarious or benificial mutation in the DNA regions that code for protiens. The individuals that have a deletarious mutation won't survive and/or reproduce as effectively so their genes won't get passed on in the vast majority of cases. In the case of a beneficial or neutral mutation, obviously those populations can survive and reproduce. In the case of a beneficial mutation, if that individual has a survival and/or reproductive advantage, then their beneficial mutation can become fixed within the population. Also not all mutations occur in protien coding sequences. Some occur in regulatory sequences, and others in non-coding sequences, etc... but the same patterns are observed with those types of mutations. If the organism can't survive or reproduce effectively the mutations won't get fixed in the population. If they are advantageous or neutral they can even if they don't in every case. BTW, what does this have to do with SLoT? Are you ever going to answer Mike's questions? You know he already provided the answers so it should be really easy.

The individuals that have a deletarious mutation won't survive and/or reproduce as effectively so their genes won't get passed on in the vast majority of cases.

IBelieveInGod said:

DS said: And there you have it folks. Adaptive mutations are not forbidden by the second law, or any other law. So the SLOT poses absolutely no problem for evolution. So IBIGOT and all of his bluster is just blowing smoke out of his favorite orifice. Good to know. Can't these guys ever get their story straight?

You haven't answered how sickle-cell anemia is an example of upward evolution now have you?

IBelieveInGod said: But, sickle-cell anemia is only beneficial when it comes to protection from malaria, and extremely harmful overall. There are millions who have this defective gene, so you are wrong to state:

The individuals that have a deletarious mutation won't survive and/or reproduce as effectively so their genes won't get passed on in the vast majority of cases.

IBelieveInGod said: But, sickle-cell anemia is only beneficial when it comes to protection from malaria, and extremely harmful overall. There are millions who have this defective gene, so you are wrong to state:

The individuals that have a deletarious mutation won't survive and/or reproduce as effectively so their genes won't get passed on in the vast majority of cases.

Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Khan et al., Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population, Science, 3 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6034 pp. 1193-1196. DOI: 10.1126/science.1203801.

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod said: But, sickle-cell anemia is only beneficial when it comes to protection from malaria, and extremely harmful overall. There are millions who have this defective gene, so you are wrong to state:

The individuals that have a deletarious mutation won't survive and/or reproduce as effectively so their genes won't get passed on in the vast majority of cases.

Or, can you explain to us, if sickle-cell anemia is not an example of a beneficial mutation, and is not an example of "upward evolution," (sic) why has sickle-cell anemia persisted for thousands of years in Subsaharan Africa, which has a very high rate of malarial infection?

IBelieveInGod said: Even if a good mutation occurs for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species. This is SLOT in action!

Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Khan et al., Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population, Science, 3 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6034 pp. 1193-1196. DOI: 10.1126/science.1203801.

What the heck does epistasis have to do with Sewell's silly SLoT argument?

apokryltaros said:

eric said:

IBelieveInGod said: Sickle-cell anemia is nothing more then an example of natural selection in action, which we all agree does take place, it is observed therefore it is a fact, but this horrible defect is not an example of upward evolution.

You keep getting my example backwards. You seem to agree that the A to T mutation produces a defect. Reduces CSI, and so on. Okay, then according to you creationists, the reverse mutational process - a mutation from T to A - should be forbidden by the second law. Explain how a T to A mutation is forbidden by the second law.

He's trying to disqualify sickle cell anemia by claiming it is a "defect, not a mutation." Of course, he's arguing this to actual scientists and students of Biology. He might as well argue that dogs don't exist, and that German Shepherds are simply "defects." And you'll notice he still hasn't gotten around to explaining what all this has to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics magically forbidding evolution from magically occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God.

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. "These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team." A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143202.htm

IBelieveInGod said: But, sickle-cell anemia is only beneficial when it comes to protection from malaria, and extremely harmful overall. There are millions who have this defective gene, so you are wrong to state:

The individuals that have a deletarious mutation won't survive and/or reproduce as effectively so their genes won't get passed on in the vast majority of cases.

IBelieveInGod said: Even if a good mutation occurs for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species. This is SLOT in action!

IBelieveInGod said: Even if a good mutation occurs for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species. This is SLOT in action!

Epistatic interactions between mutations play a prominent role in evolutionary theories. Many studies have found that epistasis is widespread, but they have rarely considered beneficial mutations. We analyzed the effects of epistasis on fitness for the first five mutations to fix in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Epistasis depended on the effects of the combined mutations—the larger the expected benefit, the more negative the epistatic effect. Epistasis thus tended to produce diminishing returns with genotype fitness, although interactions involving one particular mutation had the opposite effect. These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time. Khan et al., Negative Epistasis Between Beneficial Mutations in an Evolving Bacterial Population, Science, 3 June 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6034 pp. 1193-1196. DOI: 10.1126/science.1203801.

IBelieveInGod said: Even if a good mutation occurs for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species. This is SLOT in action!

Studies of the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation does change a protein, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial. ^ Sawyer SA, Parsch J, Zhang Z, Hartl DL (2007). “Prevalence of positive selection among nearly neutral amino acid replacements in Drosophila”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (16): 6504–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701572104. PMC 1871816. PMID 17409186

IBelieveInGod said:

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. "These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team." A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143202.htm

Cooper and his team focused on a bacterial population that had been evolved for thousands of generations such that its fitness had increased by approximately 35 percent over its ancestor. In identifying the beneficial mutations that arose in the population and adding all possible combinations of these mutations to the ancestor strain, however, they found that combinations of mutations acted in a surprising, yet simple, way. The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other. It was as if the mutations got in each other's way as they all tried to accomplish the same thing.

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said:

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. "These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team." A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143202.htm

In the paragraph preceding the one you quoted (emphasis added):

Cooper and his team focused on a bacterial population that had been evolved for thousands of generations such that its fitness had increased by approximately 35 percent over its ancestor. In identifying the beneficial mutations that arose in the population and adding all possible combinations of these mutations to the ancestor strain, however, they found that combinations of mutations acted in a surprising, yet simple, way. The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other. It was as if the mutations got in each other's way as they all tried to accomplish the same thing.

I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose, that you posted a dishonest quote mine. Care to come back to the subject of "order" and Sewell's second law argument?

IBelieveInGod said: Why is it (sickle-cell anemia) on the increase in the UK where there is no malaria infection?

j. biggs said: Sickle cell trait developed in Africa where malaria is common so it is a beneficial mutation in that environment...

apokryltaros said: IBelieveInGod demonstrates once again that the only thing he can do beyond sneering and taunting is lying.

IBelieveInGod said: But, sickle-cell anemia is only beneficial when it comes to protection from malaria, and extremely harmful overall. There are millions who have this defective gene, so you are wrong to state:

The individuals that have a deletarious mutation won't survive and/or reproduce as effectively so their genes won't get passed on in the vast majority of cases.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: Math really isn't your strong suit, is it?

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said:

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. "These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team." A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143202.htm

In the paragraph preceding the one you quoted (emphasis added):

Cooper and his team focused on a bacterial population that had been evolved for thousands of generations such that its fitness had increased by approximately 35 percent over its ancestor. In identifying the beneficial mutations that arose in the population and adding all possible combinations of these mutations to the ancestor strain, however, they found that combinations of mutations acted in a surprising, yet simple, way. The more mutations the researchers added, the more they interfered with each other. It was as if the mutations got in each other's way as they all tried to accomplish the same thing.

I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose, that you posted a dishonest quote mine. Care to come back to the subject of "order" and Sewell's second law argument?

eric said:

j. biggs said: Sickle cell trait developed in Africa where malaria is common so it is a beneficial mutation in that environment...

Highlighting one of the other problems of ID, which is that a sequence which is highly specified for you (in a malaria zone) may be at best junk for me. My whole point in bringing this up was just to provide a concrete example of what should be simple and obvious point: the same mutation can both increase and decrease complexity, or fitness - or whatever "thing" a creationist wants to measure - in different circumstances. This goes not only for their vague, wishy-washy, handwaving definitions of stuff like CSI or information, it also applies when they adopt rigiorous formal definitions, like shannon entropy. Consider the A to T mutation for the underlined letters in these two sequences: AAAA, TTAT. Same mutation, opposite effects on shannon entropy.

j. biggs said:

IBelieveInGod said: Why is it (sickle-cell anemia) on the increase in the UK where there is no malaria infection?

Uh, because of the immigration of people of African descent to the UK and the fact that the minority groups in the UK that carry this trait are reproducing faster than the natives. Tis but one trait and it does not impart a significant reproductive disadvantage to carriers so it can be easily passed on to future generations. What you don't see is a lot of homozygous individuals passing on the trait, that is not one of the reasons it is increasing in the UK. So there you have it, two reasons it's on the rise.

IBelieveInGod said: Is this trait beneficial in the UK?

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will over time end up with a book of astrobiology?

IBelieveInGod said: By the way I have never said that mutations were forbidden by the second law, even beneficial mutations aren't forbidden by the second law, and I have never said that they were.

IBelieveInGod said: Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will over time end up with a book of astrobiology?

IBelieveInGod said: Even if a good mutation occurs for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net effect over time being disastrous for any species. This is SLOT in action!

IBelieveInGod said: Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will over time end up with a book of astrobiology?

IBelieveInGod said: I gave the link for you to read the entire context, therefore it is not a quote mine. I just posted the most revealing part. Maybe next time you would prefer that I post the entire article.

Joe Felsenstein said: I pointed out something that is entering: what Sewell dismisses as "radiation", namely sunlight.

Helena Constantine said:

IBelieveInGod said: Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will over time end up with a book of astrobiology?

Methinks it is like a weasel.

IBIG's definition of SLoT is fixed (in a genetic sense) and wrong (in reality). There is no way he will accept the actual definition of SLoT because that would cause him great physical and emotional damage. It is a tortucan rut of epic proportions.

However, when he does come to his senses I will be there with an ear to hear him out and offer a shoulder for him to lean upon.

(for some reason Obvious Troll and Concern Troll popped out of me today...maybe it's because I'm fed up with grading incoherent gen chem assignments)

Mike Elzinga said: The systems also serve in statistical mechanics courses as a prime example of the fact that entropy is the enumeration of accessible ENERGY microstates that are consistent with the macroscopic state of the system. It has nothing to do with order/disorder.

JimNorth said: IBIG's definition of SLoT is fixed (in a genetic sense) and wrong (in reality). There is no way he will accept the actual definition of SLoT because that would cause him great physical and emotional damage. It is a tortucan rut of epic proportions. However, when he does come to his senses I will be there with an ear to hear him out and offer a shoulder for him to lean upon. (for some reason Obvious Troll and Concern Troll popped out of me today...maybe it's because I'm fed up with grading incoherent gen chem assignments)

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: I gave the link for you to read the entire context, therefore it is not a quote mine. I just posted the most revealing part. Maybe next time you would prefer that I post the entire article.

No, it's an unethical misrepresentation of the original article. You posted in an attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that populations cannot improve their fitness through beneficial mutations, employing the subterfuge of omitting the part that showed the organism had already improved in fitness by 35% through beneficial mutations. We have gone quite far afield. In deference to Joe Felsenstein, I will not be commenting further on your inaccuracies about mutations here unless they're tied to Sewell's argument. If I have time, I might respond on the BW, but don't hold your breath. Any time you want to answer my very simple question about ice and water, feel free; it's actually relevant to the topic and you are quite obviously avoiding it.

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team."

A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns.

IBelieveInGod the lying hypocrite lied:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: I gave the link for you to read the entire context, therefore it is not a quote mine. I just posted the most revealing part. Maybe next time you would prefer that I post the entire article.

No, it's an unethical misrepresentation of the original article. You posted in an attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that populations cannot improve their fitness through beneficial mutations, employing the subterfuge of omitting the part that showed the organism had already improved in fitness by 35% through beneficial mutations. We have gone quite far afield. In deference to Joe Felsenstein, I will not be commenting further on your inaccuracies about mutations here unless they're tied to Sewell's argument. If I have time, I might respond on the BW, but don't hold your breath. Any time you want to answer my very simple question about ice and water, feel free; it's actually relevant to the topic and you are quite obviously avoiding it.

Now how did I misrepresent the article? Is it not true that the article stated:

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team."

A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns.

You see I have never argued that there are never beneficial mutations now have I, and that was not the point of the post. It was to show that even with beneficial mutations that they didn't have a constant effect, and in fact the rate of a population's fitness is declining over time. This is empirical evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.

I think what we are seeing with the IBIG troll is the equivalent of the three year old little brat who discovers something that annoys big sister and gleefully keeps doing it.

The troll is emotionally and intellectually a small and spoiled child; that has been demonstrated over and over again on the Bathroom Wall where he was confined for doing exactly what he is doing now.

His “Christian thing” is to make such an annoying nuisance of himself that someone will lash out at him and put him in his place.

Then he will screech persecution and launch into preachy scolding, having “proven” that all evolutionists are nasty bad people.

That is why he also got the label “KICK ME” troll.

Thanks for your egg carton and eggs analogy.

IBelieveInGod said:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: I gave the link for you to read the entire context, therefore it is not a quote mine. I just posted the most revealing part. Maybe next time you would prefer that I post the entire article.

No, it's an unethical misrepresentation of the original article. You posted in an attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that populations cannot improve their fitness through beneficial mutations, employing the subterfuge of omitting the part that showed the organism had already improved in fitness by 35% through beneficial mutations. We have gone quite far afield. In deference to Joe Felsenstein, I will not be commenting further on your inaccuracies about mutations here unless they're tied to Sewell's argument. If I have time, I might respond on the BW, but don't hold your breath. Any time you want to answer my very simple question about ice and water, feel free; it's actually relevant to the topic and you are quite obviously avoiding it.

Now how did I misrepresent the article? Is it not true that the article stated:

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team."

A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns.

You see I have never argued that there are never beneficial mutations now have I, and that was not the point of the post. It was to show that even with beneficial mutations that they didn't have a constant effect, and in fact the rate of a population's fitness is declining over time. This is empirical evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.

SWT said:

Mike Elzinga said: The systems also serve in statistical mechanics courses as a prime example of the fact that entropy is the enumeration of accessible ENERGY microstates that are consistent with the macroscopic state of the system. It has nothing to do with order/disorder.

This merits some emphasis. I speculate that creationists (among others) want to assign an entropy to each specific microstate [believing that in your example 1111111100000000 has a different entropy than 1110101000000111 ] rather than recognizing that entropy value includes all accessible microstates consistent with the macroscopic state.

Now, I really love the area of epistasis: it was the topic of my undergraduate senior thesis and I worked on recombination among epistatically interacting genes for some years. And there are things I would like to tell the trolls when they start holding forth about how more deleterious mutations occur than advantageous ones and therefore species will deteriorate. Like please read some actual evolutionary genetics theory (such as here) and look up Kimura's formula for fixation probabilities and you'll see how wrong you are -- advantageous mutations are vastly more likely to be fixed than are deleterious mutations. And I enjoyed seeing an abstract of work by Stan Sawyer. Stan and I wrote a couple of papers together 30 years ago, and he is a totally great guy.

But all this is off topic. Shaddup!!! Or I will shut you up. Back to the Second Law and seeing if there is even one troll who will defend Granville Sewell's argument.

JimNorth said:

Thanks for your egg carton and eggs analogy.

You're welcome. I try to come up with simple, yet accurate, models that students can use to grasp seemingly difficult concepts. You may use it without fear of copyright infringement. ;) I also joke with my students that if you add heat to the egg carton system you will end up with a crunchy, yet delicious, breakfast. IBIG, demonstrate to us that you understand SLoT - in a way that aligns with reality. Do not include disorder or information or complexity or any other yellow mackeral. Just the facts.

Joe Felsenstein said: Now, I really love the area of epistasis: it was the topic of my undergraduate senior thesis and I worked on recombination among epistatically interacting genes for some years. And there are things I would like to tell the trolls when they start holding forth about how more deleterious mutations occur than advantageous ones and therefore species will deteriorate. Like please read some actual evolutionary genetics theory (such as here) and look up Kimura's formula for fixation probabilities and you'll see how wrong you are -- advantageous mutations are vastly more likely to be fixed than are deleterious mutations. And I enjoyed seeing an abstract of work by Stan Sawyer. Stan and I wrote a couple of papers together 30 years ago, and he is a totally great guy. But all this is off topic. Shaddup!!! Or I will shut you up. Back to the Second Law and seeing if there is even one troll who will defend Granville Sewell's argument.

Atheistoclast said:

Joe Felsenstein said: I worked on recombination among epistatically interacting genes for some years.

And so have I. More on that in the new year. JF has not quite been so silent on this subject.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Helena Constantine said: Why doesn't he attempt to express his ideas on the subject in terms of the equations which describe entropy (I know he can't, and that is why he ignores the test--and keeps pretending to be shocked that it doesn't address the origin of life!!!--but why doesn't that very fact make him less sure of himself?)

IBelieveInGod said: Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will over time end up with a book of astrobiology?

Helena Constantine said: I think the believingtroll is on topic (by his own lights). I think he believes that the SLOT is what is responsible for advantageous mutations not being fixed more often than deleterious ones, or at least not above some threshold he calls macro-evolution. That seems likely from examining his posts overall. Perhaps you and other scientists here don't see that because it sounds too crazy for you to make sense of.

TomA said:

IBelieveInGod said: Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will over time end up with a book of astrobiology?

Only if you selected for changes that looked like astrobiology.

schroedinger's cat said:

SWT said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as uncertainty. Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Did you know your entropy thought experiment doesn't apply to the origin of life?

Since you know absolutely nothing about entropy, you have no idea of whether that is true or not. Take the test.

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Here is a hint; the topic of this thread can be found way up at the top of the page. I can pretty much assume that if you can’t even find that on your own, there is no way you would know anything about entropy or what is even being discussed here. As a spoiled, narcissistic preadolescent, you evidently spend your entire life whining for attention as the world passes you by. By the way, I have a growing suspicion that soon you may be banished to the Bathroom Wall if you continue to play this game.

Mike: Entropy can be defined as the measure of uncertainty. "A fuzzy set's entropy (which could be thought of as its "ambiguity") is defined by the number of violations of the law of non-contradiction compared with the number of violations of the excluded middle. Entropy is zero when both laws hold, is maximum in the center of the hypercube. Alternatively, a fuzzy set's entropy can be defined as a measure of how a set is a subset of itself." http://www.scaruffi.com/mind/kosko.html - a review of Bart Kosko's Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems (Prentice Hall, 1992) Darpa is researching how to create a life form that lives forever -> never reaches maximum entropy. Information and thermodynamic. Now having trumped you once more ... are you willing to admit that your test has nothing to do with the chemical reactions that originated life?

Except that this discussion is about the application of the second law of thermodynamics, not about set theory. Why are you afraid to address an extremely simple test about thermodynamics?

SWT Place "fuzzy entropy" in google and see what you get for answers. Do you know how to relate "entropy" to the second law of thermodynamics? I get in trouble when I give examples of the idea ... and the idea has direct application to the origin of life ... especially since materialist resort to wild speculation to suppress the fact that they can't explain origins. Fuzzy set theory tells us that there can be an answer that isn't got or anything the materialists accept. ID/creationists battle back and forth with materialists and neither side has the answer thus far. The law of the excluded is embedded in this battle and both sides use it. I represent another side -> try to find out what actually happened. That means getting rid of a priori prejudice and following the evidence wherever it leads.

Joe Felsenstein said:Back to the Second Law and seeing if there is even one troll who will defend Granville Sewell's argument.

j. biggs said:

TomA said:

IBelieveInGod said: Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will over time end up with a book of astrobiology?

Only if you selected for changes that looked like astrobiology.

Ahh, but then all you would get is a cook book with directions on how to make moon pies and star crunches. Astrobiology texts contain too much complex specified information to occur using the random thoughts of astrobiologists fiddling with the works of Julia Child, because before they even got close to an astrobiology text entropy would turn it into US Weekly or the National Enquirer. Therefore the only way astrobiology texts could occur is if they were designed by an "unknown" designer who can defy entropy. I like to call this designer Jesus.

The "texts" stuff is too far from the Second Law now, so lets not continue that.

Joe Felsenstein said: The "texts" stuff is too far from the Second Law now, so lets not continue that.

Joe Felsenstein said: The "texts" stuff is too far from the Second Law now, so lets not continue that.

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod the lying hypocrite lied:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: I gave the link for you to read the entire context, therefore it is not a quote mine. I just posted the most revealing part. Maybe next time you would prefer that I post the entire article.

No, it's an unethical misrepresentation of the original article. You posted in an attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that populations cannot improve their fitness through beneficial mutations, employing the subterfuge of omitting the part that showed the organism had already improved in fitness by 35% through beneficial mutations. We have gone quite far afield. In deference to Joe Felsenstein, I will not be commenting further on your inaccuracies about mutations here unless they're tied to Sewell's argument. If I have time, I might respond on the BW, but don't hold your breath. Any time you want to answer my very simple question about ice and water, feel free; it's actually relevant to the topic and you are quite obviously avoiding it.

Now how did I misrepresent the article? Is it not true that the article stated:

It was found that the beneficial mutations allowing the bacteria to increase in fitness didn't have a constant effect. The effect of their interactions depended on the presence of other mutations, which turned out to be overwhelmingly negative. These results point us toward expecting to see the rate of a population's fitness declining over time even with the continual addition of new beneficial mutations," he said. "As we sometimes see in sports, a group of individual stars doesn't necessarily make a great team."

A similar study from the lab of Chris Marx at Harvard University is being published in Science simultaneously with Cooper's paper. Marx studied interactions between beneficial mutations arising in a different bacterium evolving in a different medium, yet also found a general trend toward diminishing returns.

You see I have never argued that there are never beneficial mutations now have I, and that was not the point of the post. It was to show that even with beneficial mutations that they didn't have a constant effect, and in fact the rate of a population's fitness is declining over time. This is empirical evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.

You misrepresented the article by claiming it disproves evolution due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The article discusses why there was no net gain in fitness in the population of bacteria due to too many mutations counteracting each other. Nowhere in that article did it say that evolution was disproven, nor does it mention the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Ergo, you lied about the article by deliberately misrepresenting what the article said. Furthermore, if you never had argued that there have never been beneficial mutations, then what the bloody hell were you babbling about when you were trying to magically disqualify sickle cell anemia from being a beneficial mutation?

IBelieveInGod said:

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod the lying hypocrite lied:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: I gave the link for you to read the entire context, therefore it is not a quote mine. I just posted the most revealing part. Maybe next time you would prefer that I post the entire article.

No, it's an unethical misrepresentation of the original article. You posted in an attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that populations cannot improve their fitness through beneficial mutations, employing the subterfuge of omitting the part that showed the organism had already improved in fitness by 35% through beneficial mutations. ...

Now how did I misrepresent the article? Is it not true that the article stated: ... You see I have never argued that there are never beneficial mutations now have I, and that was not the point of the post. It was to show that even with beneficial mutations that they didn't have a constant effect, and in fact the rate of a population's fitness is declining over time. This is empirical evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.

You misrepresented the article by claiming it disproves evolution due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The article discusses why there was no net gain in fitness in the population of bacteria due to too many mutations counteracting each other. ...

Now where did I say that the article said, or even implied that evolution was disproven?

The following is an elementary concept test. Take a simple system made up of 16 atoms, each of which has a non-degenerate ground state and a single accessible excited state. Start with all of the atoms in the ground state. 1. What is the entropy when all atoms are in the ground state? 2. Add just enough energy to put 4 atoms in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 3. Add more energy so that 8 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 4. Add still more energy so that 12 atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 5. Add more energy so that all atoms are in the excited state. What is the entropy now? 6. Rank order the temperatures in each of the above cases.

Joe Felsenstein said:

IBelieveInGod said:

apokryltaros said:

IBelieveInGod the lying hypocrite lied:

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: I gave the link for you to read the entire context, therefore it is not a quote mine. I just posted the most revealing part. Maybe next time you would prefer that I post the entire article.

No, it's an unethical misrepresentation of the original article. You posted in an attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that populations cannot improve their fitness through beneficial mutations, employing the subterfuge of omitting the part that showed the organism had already improved in fitness by 35% through beneficial mutations. ...

Now how did I misrepresent the article? Is it not true that the article stated: ... You see I have never argued that there are never beneficial mutations now have I, and that was not the point of the post. It was to show that even with beneficial mutations that they didn't have a constant effect, and in fact the rate of a population's fitness is declining over time. This is empirical evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution.

You misrepresented the article by claiming it disproves evolution due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The article discusses why there was no net gain in fitness in the population of bacteria due to too many mutations counteracting each other. ...

Now where did I say that the article said, or even implied that evolution was disproven?

In any case, the discussion of mutation effects, not directly in the context of the Second Law, is off topic and will stop here.

apokryltaros said: Then again, I find it pathetic that the only way creationists can even attempt to support the claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics somehow magically prohibits evolution from occurring without the direct, magical intervention of God is to lie, and then lie about having lied in the first place.

There is a characteristic of students who read for comprehension that is extremely important in their progress toward understanding. That characteristic is to try to grasp the real concepts behind the words. This is a characteristic NOT found in those who scan for words to be used as weapons in word-gaming battles. So if a serious student encounters the word “disorder” or the phrase “measure of disorder” associated with a formula for entropy, the question would be, “Why is yet another word now being attached to a word invented by Clausius to name a specific mathematical concept?” Why “disorder?” Why not “flexibility,” or “unpleasantness,” or “harmoniousness,” or “strangeness?” Given what that word “disorder” is commonly understood to mean, what is “disorded?” Clausius invented the word “entropy” to apply to a particular mathematical relationship that was becoming a useful pattern in thermodynamics. After the development of statistical mechanics, concepts like “temperature” & “entropy,” found deeper roots in the kinetic energies of atoms and molecules as well as in how the total energy of a thermodynamic system was spread among microstates of the constituents of the system. There has never been any need to apply another word to either of these concepts; especially words that carried other “baggage” along with them that simply contributes to obfuscating concepts that are already clearly established. So, why “disorder” for entropy? What does it add to the concept of entropy? What is “disordered” when we have already shown by example that it has nothing to do with the logarithm of the number of accessible energy microstates? The use of the word “disorder” came up in the context of learning how to enumerate permutations and combinations, because the examples were taken from arrangements of things like different colored balls, or people and chairs, or any number of other traditional and easily visualized examples. To then carry those same mathematical formulas over to enumerating energy microstates and talk about the various ways those states can appear does not need haul along words like “disorder” that apply to the spatial arrangements of objects. Disorder in this energy microstate context is only a metaphor carried over from spatial examples used to teach how to count. Physicists have always known this; but popularizations fail to make the distinctions necessary. Creationists have always taken their ideas from popularizations; and that is where Morris picked up his misconceptions. Those misconceptions stuck because Morris saw that they served his purpose of making evolution incompatible with the “second law of thermodynamics.” But those concepts that Morris used and passed on have nothing to do with the real world of physics, chemistry, and biology. This is why FL can’t let go. To really understand these concepts is to recognize that ID/creationism has been wrong from the beginning. But to really understand these concepts is to understand why matter behaves the way it does and why evolution is happening right in front of our eyes. There is only one set of scientific concepts that apply to the real world because they were developed to describe and predict as accurately as we can by testing them against the universe from which they were developed. The set of “scientific” concepts that props up sectarian dogma has nothing to do with that real world. They were developed to prop up dogma; not to understand the world. So, again; what is “disordered?” Why does either entropy or “number of accessible microstates” have to have another word attached to it? What does another name add to our understanding of the concept?

Mike Elzinga said: "IBIG pulled the same doe-eyed innocence routines of “Where did I say blah, blah, blah …?” and “Let me ask you this?” over there. Every topic he attempted to inject was off topic, and posted or linked to without comprehension. He even tried to copycat FL’s imitation of the “wise and penetrating questioning” act; not even able to use the words correctly. He claims to be on topic if his posts contain some of the words."

Mike Elzinga said: ... The IBIG troll was banished to the Bathroom Wall for good reason. His MO has not changed in the slightest for something like two years now.

prongs said: Therefore they ignore all those pesky equations - they're irrelevant - and they don't have to consider them at all. Remember, creationists already 'understand' entropy and the 2nd Law without the need for mathematics. How can you argue with people like this?

Atheistoclast said:

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall. I meant it, folks. JF

Atheistoclast said:

Atheistoclast said:

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall. I meant it, folks. JF

Et tu Brute? Let me just remind you: Sewell or no Sewell, you can't have a sensible discussion about the relevance of the 2nd law to evolution without mentioning mutation. Evolution is a process of change, just as thermodynamics is a process of change. The cause for change in biological systems is mutation while the cause for change in thermodynamical systems is diffusion/dissipation. Even sunlight increases the chances of mutation because the DNA molecule is susceptible to the effects of radiation. Don't be such an intellectual brute. You can't win an argument by excluding the facts.

Atheistoclast said:

Atheistoclast said:

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall. I meant it, folks. JF

Et tu Brute? Let me just remind you: Sewell or no Sewell, you can't have a sensible discussion about the relevance of the 2nd law to evolution without mentioning mutation. Evolution is a process of change, just as thermodynamics is a process of change. The cause for change in biological systems is mutation while the cause for change in thermodynamical systems is diffusion/dissipation. Even sunlight increases the chances of mutation because the DNA molecule is susceptible to the effects of radiation. Don't be such an intellectual brute. You can't win an argument by excluding the facts.

Mike Elzinga said: Nor did any of them even read “A second look at the second law” that Sewell linked to over there.

SWT said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Kevin B said:

co said: Excellent example. I myself was going to mention atmospheric reactions in response to SC's inane questioning.

A permanent body of water would be quite sufficient. The water molecules are dissociating into solvated H+ and OH- ions just as fast as the existing ions are getting back together. They've been doing this as long as there has been liquid water. (Ie since before there were *any* living organisms, not merely longer than the existence of one particular organism!)

The point that differentiates date dissociating and recombining is how long the process takes vs how long a joshua tree takes to reach equilibrium at maximum entropy. What of a life form that never attains equilibrium at maximum entropy? In natural conditions it doesn't take all that long for chemical reactions to reach equilibrium. Which one takes as long as a joshua tree? We will all die long before a young joshua tree - on average.

Just when I thought you'd corrected a fundamental error, you repeat it. Oh well, one can hope for progress ... By the way, you should take the phase diagram for carbon and ponder how long diamonds persist relative to the life span of your much-obsessed-about Joshua tree.

terenzioiltroll said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nor did any of them even read “A second look at the second law” that Sewell linked to over there.

Well, I did. I wonder how such a paper could have been published in the first place.

terenzioiltroll said:

Mike Elzinga said: Nor did any of them even read “A second look at the second law” that Sewell linked to over there.

Well, I did. I wonder how such a paper could have been published in the first place. I can see two big issues in it (and many minor ones I will not mention). 1) In the abstract: "since entropy measures disorder". Since? Later on: "‘‘Thermal entropy’’ is a quantity that is used to measure randomness in the distribution of heat. The rate of change of thermal entropy, S, is given by the usual definition as [definition of entropy in the integral form]". Where is "disorder"? Apparently, when Sewell writes "disorder", he actually means "reverse gradient". He states that "thermal disorder" is maximum when all of the system is at the same temperature, i.e.: when temperature gradient is zero everywhere. In the same way, he states that "carbon disorder" is maximum in his carbon-diffusing-in-something example when the carbon density is the same everywhere, that is density gradient is zero. Why is this an issue? Because we know of countless naturally occurring processes that spontaneously maintain gradients of some phisical property in an open system: Sewell conclusion that "Stated in terms of order, Eq. (5) says that the X -order in an open system cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary" is contraddicted by observed reality. Yet, his mathematics apparently checks. Where is the catch?

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

I do know when I see a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with how DNA originated in the first place. You are Just running cover for the fact that materialism can't explain the origins of life.

So explain to us why we are obligated to take assertions of GODDIDIT seriously, or why we should abandon all of science as being an evil religion that inspired the Nazis because of "unsupervised molecules" being allegedly unaccounted for?

schroedinger's cat said:

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

I do know when I see a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with how DNA originated in the first place. You are Just running cover for the fact that materialism can't explain the origins of life.

So explain to us why we are obligated to take assertions of GODDIDIT seriously, or why we should abandon all of science as being an evil religion that inspired the Nazis because of "unsupervised molecules" being allegedly unaccounted for?

This is why I introduced fuzzy logic. You assume the actual answer is one of two choices - materialism explains life or God did it. These are just two possible solutions and neither is necessarily the answer, Fuzzy logic permits us to see solutions that aren't at the extremes. Consider the multiverse. Fuzzy logic permits us to find solutions in each one regardless of the upper lint even as there is zero evidence there are more than ours. And I have to respond to Mike's " sudden bifurcation in a stream or a lightning bolt" - good example of Cauchy Schwartz distribution - fat tails - we see that in a plot of how often lightning strikes ... the rest of his message is irrelevant. Lightning is more random than gaussian distribution that Las Vegas runs on. Thus a plot will have a fatter tail. Why the Heisenberg uncertainty principle may or may not be true. No reason to assume a gaussian distribution. Like materialism and creationism ... a gaussian distribution assumption in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a guess of a special case for distribution against all the other distribution curves out there that might have thicker or thinner tails. The fuzzy set of all possible explanations for theorigins of life would include both materialism and creationism (both special cases within the fuzzy set of possibilities on origins). Since there is zero evidence that either materialism and creationism created life then the fuzzy approach broadens the mind to enable all possibilities to deal with the issue until we get to the one that really explains things.

SWT said: The first integral in Sewell's Eq. (4) accounts for entropy production within the system; the second integral accounts for entropy changes due to flows of heat, mass, and momentum across the system boundary. A more general formulation of Sewell's Eq. (4) accounts for heat, mass, and momentum transfer processes as well as chemical reactions. The first integrand in the more general formulation includes the sum of products of fluxes and their conjugate forces. The second integrand in the more general forumulation accounts for flows of matter and heat across the system boundary. What Sewell is trying to do is identify term-by-term an entropy associated with each "component" of the system (where I'm generalizing "component" to include chemical components, heat, momentum, etc.) by virtue of the fact that the each summation has a term for each "component". He then tries to argue that you can't balance the formation of "carbon entropy" by a flow of "thermal entropy" out of the system -- you can only balance generation of "thermal entropy" by a flow of heat, you can only balance "carbon entropy" with a flow of carbon, etc. The catch is, there aren't different flavors of entropy. It's wrong (and IMO silly) to talk about "thermal entropy" vs. "carbon entropy". Entropy is entropy.

schroedinger's cat said:

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

I do know when I see a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with how DNA originated in the first place. You are Just running cover for the fact that materialism can't explain the origins of life.

So explain to us why we are obligated to take assertions of GODDIDIT seriously, or why we should abandon all of science as being an evil religion that inspired the Nazis because of "unsupervised molecules" being allegedly unaccounted for?

This is why I introduced fuzzy logic. You assume the actual answer is one of two choices - materialism explains life or God did it. These are just two possible solutions and neither is necessarily the answer, Fuzzy logic permits us to see solutions that aren't at the extremes. Consider the multiverse. Fuzzy logic permits us to find solutions in each one regardless of the upper lint even as there is zero evidence there are more than ours. And I have to respond to Mike's " sudden bifurcation in a stream or a lightning bolt" - good example of Cauchy Schwartz distribution - fat tails - we see that in a plot of how often lightning strikes ... the rest of his message is irrelevant. Lightning is more random than gaussian distribution that Las Vegas runs on. Thus a plot will have a fatter tail. Why the Heisenberg uncertainty principle may or may not be true. No reason to assume a gaussian distribution. Like materialism and creationism ... a gaussian distribution assumption in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a guess of a special case for distribution against all the other distribution curves out there that might have thicker or thinner tails. The fuzzy set of all possible explanations for theorigins of life would include both materialism and creationism (both special cases within the fuzzy set of possibilities on origins). Since there is zero evidence that either materialism and creationism created life then the fuzzy approach broadens the mind to enable all possibilities to deal with the issue until we get to the one that really explains things.

SWT said:

schroedinger's cat said: The point that differentiates date dissociating and recombining is how long the process takes vs how long a joshua tree takes to reach equilibrium at maximum entropy. What of a life form that never attains equilibrium at maximum entropy? In natural conditions it doesn't take all that long for chemical reactions to reach equilibrium. Which one takes as long as a joshua tree? We will all die long before a young joshua tree - on average.

Just when I thought you'd corrected a fundamental error, you repeat it. Oh well, one can hope for progress ... By the way, you should take the phase diagram for carbon and ponder how long diamonds persist relative to the life span of your much-obsessed-about Joshua tree.

schroedinger's cat said: SWT: Are you saying that -OH and +H3O bounce back and forth to reach maximum entropy at the same speed as the Johua tree's molecules reaches maximum entropy? (difference over time).

Creationists may see that there is a difference. The difference in rate can account for there is a difference science called biology rather than just lumping everything under chemistry and physics. Biology is a separate set because of the different behavior of these molecules. You are confusing in your diamond analogy as a state already in maximum entropy with a life system of the joshua tree that is headed to maximum entropy and doing a decent job of resisting the process. Why we study joshua trees in a field called biology and don't study diamonds there. What keeps diamonds from being a focus of enquiry in a biology class has to do with entropy.

apokryltaros said: So, your lazy-assed suggestion is to force both, while hypocritically leaning towards Creationism (hence your use of the perjorative "materialism"), despite the fact that Creationism has been clearly, repeatedly demonstrated not to have any explanatory power or even potential application whatsoever beyond fomenting propaganda and anti-science sentiments. Furthermore, your "fuzzy logic" does not even begin to explain why or even how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is supposed to magically prohibit evolution from magically occurring without the direct magical intervention of God. In fact, the only reason you've bothered to give to disprove evolution is that you think botanists and other evil materialists are too stupid to explain how joshua trees could magically come into existence from "unsupervised molecules"

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

I do know when I see a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with how DNA originated in the first place. You are Just running cover for the fact that materialism can't explain the origins of life.

So explain to us why we are obligated to take assertions of GODDIDIT seriously, or why we should abandon all of science as being an evil religion that inspired the Nazis because of "unsupervised molecules" being allegedly unaccounted for?

eric said:

SWT said: By the way, you should take [a look at] the phase diagram for carbon and ponder how long diamonds persist relative to the life span of your much-obsessed-about Joshua tree.

Since Cat specifically raves about organics, so he might also consider the 'lifespan' of fossil fuels.

schroedinger's cat said:

eric said:

SWT said: By the way, you should take [a look at] the phase diagram for carbon and ponder how long diamonds persist relative to the life span of your much-obsessed-about Joshua tree.

Since Cat specifically raves about organics, so he might also consider the 'lifespan' of fossil fuels.

Why do you suppose fossil fuels aren't a focus of a first year college biology textbook?

schroedinger's cat said:

eric said:

SWT said: By the way, you should take [a look at] the phase diagram for carbon and ponder how long diamonds persist relative to the life span of your much-obsessed-about Joshua tree.

Since Cat specifically raves about organics, so he might also consider the 'lifespan' of fossil fuels.

Why do you suppose fossil fuels aren't a focus of a first year college biology textbook?

Mike Elzinga said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

Rolf said: There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Yes. What was the reaction of the trolls to me bringing up their Off To Origin Of Life Everyone (OTOOLE) strategy? Or to me (later) re-emphasizing that we are, after all, discussing Sewell's arguments about biological evolution? It was to re-emphasize that we have to spend our time discussing the OOL, or else to bring up extraneous stuff (DARPA projects, for example). So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

I suspect that the cat troll is just a run-of-the-mill troll with nothing left to do in life. He could be a creationist attempting to be invisible by standing in the middle of the room with his eyes closed. Whatever; he spouts the same gibberish. But I am also finding it interesting that this little concept test has generated such a dramatic avoidance response from the creationist trolls. They seem to be really afraid of it. Suddenly so many of them are running around in circles en mass, screeching, doubling down, and hurling feces. The test must be come kind of amulet. The fact that the origin of life issue is being thrown up here suggests that the test has struck a major nerve. If thermodynamics and the second law are not what Morris taught them, but instead something that is the normal routine for matter to condense, then, yeah, they are in deep trouble (run in circles; screech and shout). I had never thrown a concept test at a creationist before; here on Panda’s Thumb is the first time I tried it. In my previous talks back in the 1970s and 80s, I was advised to dump the math in my presentations. I resisted, but I think the advice I got was generally good. But now I am wondering if this merely gave creationists a chance to hide. I have other concept tests I could try. I wonder what would happen. Hmmm; curious.

SWT said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

Rolf said: There's nothing left to be said. We are at page 24 since Nov 18 and abiogenesis still on the creationists platter.

Yes. What was the reaction of the trolls to me bringing up their Off To Origin Of Life Everyone (OTOOLE) strategy? Or to me (later) re-emphasizing that we are, after all, discussing Sewell's arguments about biological evolution? It was to re-emphasize that we have to spend our time discussing the OOL, or else to bring up extraneous stuff (DARPA projects, for example). So they have made it clear that, by default, they have abandoned any attempt to back Sewell's argument about biological evolution after the origin of life. That is a momentous concession on their part. It is too bad they won't acknowledge it openly. Not that I'm surprised.

Joe: The idea of uncertainty at the origins applies to both thermodynamics and information and the principle of entropy (uncertainty) applies in both areas in a discussion of origins. Molecules making up life are vastly more ordered than other molecules and ID folks say that order is evidence of intelligent design. I don't see any evidence that knocks Sewell out of the box so I am not sure why you object to his POV. Also in another message you mentioned you didn't like the discuss touching on a Darpa project that would create a life form that would live forever. Seems like knowing how something can be invented from scratch that never dies one ups whatever caused life. Thus 100% on point. Also ... Mike Elzinga has repeatedly said I don't understand concepts I present. So I presented a working knowledge of the principle of fuzzy logic to demonstrate: 1. why materialists can't understand the very same issues that first persuaded Francis Crick that life on earth could not start from any possible natural cause. 2. To demonstrate that multivalent notions applies to the entropy of life - fuzzy entropy. Place fuzzy entropy in google. See for yourself. Thus to me it looks like the ID/creationists are a lot closer to the truth that life does not have a natural origin than materialists. But I would caution ID/creationists that just because no one on the materialist team anywhere anyhow have a clue on origins it does not mean that God Did It. That is the point of multivalent thinking. A set is fuzzy to the extent it defies the law of the excluded middle. Showing up all the materialists here as so shallow and not even aware of this field is just a side benefit. It took some patience to lure Mike into asking me for my definition of entropy and then he got crushed with an idea tons of people already know and use. For instance Japanese brand cars all use fuzzy controllers for cruise control so you don't speed up or slow down going up and down hills. The fuzzy principle has direct application to understanding the origins of life. been around for a while. Only a bozo claims to be a big shot expert and couldn't see this coming. I carefully laid the groundwork. Check mate.

You must be thinking of some other argument Sewell has made. The one we're discussing here is a flawed attempt to apply nonequilibrium thermodynamics to evoluton (and probably abiogenesis); if Sewell's argument is correct, plants cannot grow. As a methodological naturalist, I consider any argument that forces us to concludes that plants can't grow is refuted by observation. If you disagree that Sewell's argument leads to the conclusion that plants can't grow, you need to deal with his actual argument. So far, the anti-evolution posters here have addressed neither what Sewell actually wrote nor any of commentaries pointing out Sewell's folly. You still haven't demonstrated that you haven't anything remotely resembling a clue about what entropy is. You have made repeated, fundamental mistakes about basic thermodynamics. You argue against "materialism" (whatever that means). So, what results can you point to for a "non-materialistic" program of research? Have the non-materialists been able to create life in their laboratories? Are the people working on the BioDesign project employing non-material agency to develop organisms that can live indefinitely (not "forever" as you state)? Can you point to any technological developments that have come from your non-materialist program? Me, I'm a methodological naturalist because this approach gets me and my students repeatable, objectively measurable results.

schroedinger's cat said:

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

I do know when I see a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with how DNA originated in the first place. You are Just running cover for the fact that materialism can't explain the origins of life.

So explain to us why we are obligated to take assertions of GODDIDIT seriously, or why we should abandon all of science as being an evil religion that inspired the Nazis because of "unsupervised molecules" being allegedly unaccounted for?

Where did I assert God created life? I have no idea of the source. How many times must I say that no one knows how life got started (and happens to resist movement to information and thermodynamic maximum entropy in the process at that moment).

Mike's test should be placed on the bathroom wall since it has zero application to the origin of life.

It is meant as a diversion to run cover for the blatant obvious case that scientific materialism does not explain the origin of life.

Mike and the rest of the materialists here (all the ones who have commented in this topic) assume the law of the excluded middle - since creationists can't show a mechanism through which God created life then scientific materialism did it.

IOW ... this sort of thinking by scientific materialists here does not explain what builds up in a lint filter of a clothes drier. We put wet clothes in and we take dry clothes out therefore the only thing that should be different is the loss of water from the laundry.

SWT said:

Joe Felsenstein said:

schroedinger's cat: Also in another message you mentioned you didn’t like the discuss touching on a Darpa project that would create a life form that would live forever. Seems like knowing how something can be invented from scratch that never dies one ups whatever caused life. Thus 100% on point.

If DARPA is really hoping to make a life form that would live forever (and with 100% probability of doing so), then DARPA knows nothing of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The project would not only not be worth $6, it would not even be worth $5.95. I could pay for the whole project with the money in my wallet right now but it would be an awfully bad investment. I suspect DARPA is betting their $6 on something else.

Of course, schroedinger's cat got it wrong. DARPA has $6.5 million budgeted for BioDesign in FY 2012. A previous year's budget justification indicated that a goal is to engineer an organism that can survive indefinitely; there's no indication that such an engineered organism would vioate the second law -- I strongly suspect that matter and energy will flow through these engineered organisms to keep them alive, just like matter and energy flow through us lowly evolved creatures now. The "BioDesign" critters might need a little more energy to keep improved repair systems working (although DARPA might compensate for that by reducing the rate of reproduction so that the metabolic processes from existing organisms would be adequate), but anyone who actually understands the second law will recognize that there's nothing thermodynamically unfeasible about the effort. It's interesting the schroedinger's cat seems to think that our potential ability to design and build an organism is some sort of challenge to either evolutionary theory or "materialism" ... again, I doubt that DARPA is planning to use any sort of non-material agency to desgin or construct the engineered organisms.

schroedinger's cat said: This is why I introduced fuzzy logic.

The fuzzy set of all possible explanations for theorigins of life...

schroedinger's cat said: Darpa will take design to get a life form that lives forever AND the first molecules in the eternal life form aren't going to act like any other molecules ever seen before in this or any other universe in the multiverse.

Now we can't say they will break the law to make this new life form but we can say if they do it that there is no natural explanation observed.

Since this new life form is possible then why do you suppose it never came into existence on its own?

schroedinger's cat said: I presented a working knowledge of the principle of fuzzy logic...

PA Poland said:

schroedinger's cat said:

apokryltaros said:

schroedinger's cat said:

Mike Elzinga said:

schroedinger's cat said: Mike using a small numbers of molecules because he is trying to hide the fact that his example has nothing to do with the creation of life).

Do you know what a concept test is? It is made to be quick and easy in order to check if you can demonstrate understanding of a fundamental concept. This is an EASY test. In fact, I dare say you don’t know how easy. People are laughing; I’m not kidding. Are you going to take it?

I do know when I see a red herring. Your example has nothing to do with how DNA originated in the first place. You are Just running cover for the fact that materialism can't explain the origins of life.

So explain to us why we are obligated to take assertions of GODDIDIT seriously, or why we should abandon all of science as being an evil religion that inspired the Nazis because of "unsupervised molecules" being allegedly unaccounted for?

Where did I assert God created life? I have no idea of the source. How many times must I say that no one knows how life got started (and happens to resist movement to information and thermodynamic maximum entropy in the process at that moment).

It takes a lot of effort to remain still - a living tree generates entropy at a far greater rate than a dead one. Figure a living tree has trillions of cells, performing hundreds of chemical reactions/second just to maintain itself, generating entropy (increased motion of the molecules in cellular membranes, and the fact that no chemical reaction is 100% efficient) the whole time. So even by that limited understanding of the 2LOT, life is not forbidden and can occur without being supervised by unevidenced Magical Sky Pixies/God/'Intelligent Designer'/External Intellects.

Mike's test should be placed on the bathroom wall since it has zero application to the origin of life.

IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO ! If someone is blubbering about how the 2LOT forbids this and that, knowing how much they actually KNOW about the actual 2LOT helps determine if they are worth listening to or not. So far - NOT ! Initiating whining evasion/posturing :

It is meant as a diversion to run cover for the blatant obvious case that scientific materialism does not explain the origin of life.

In reality, dragging in the origin of life into the discussion is the crimson whale vomited up the IDiocreotards to cover the fact that they know nothing about the actual 2LOT. Creationism explains nothing. Never did. How, EXACTLY, did you 'determine' that reality-based science does not explain the origin of life ? The fact that it cannot reach your arbitrary and unstated levels of certainty is irrelevant. And just what ARE these 'alternatives between materialism and gibbering creotardism' you've been going on and on and on and on about ? Is 'A Magical Sky Pixie did 1% of the work, and materialism explains everything else !' one of your fuzzy headed 'alternatives' ?

Mike and the rest of the materialists here (all the ones who have commented in this topic) assume the law of the excluded middle - since creationists can't show a mechanism through which God created life then scientific materialism did it.

At least reality-based science has KNOWN, TESTABLE MECHANISMS, and can explain quite a bit. What does IDiocreotardism offer ? Nothing. Now, if they could provide something other than 'an unknowable magical being somehow DIDIT !!!11!!!1!!!', then they might be taken seriously. Not holding my breath waiting for them though. We say 'life arose by natural means' because that is what the available data shows - now, if you or one of the drooling IDiots you are shielding could present positive EVIDENCE that something else was required, we'd be glad to hear it (and no, personal incredulity is evidence of nothing except incredulity).

IOW ... this sort of thinking by scientific materialists here does not explain what builds up in a lint filter of a clothes drier. We put wet clothes in and we take dry clothes out therefore the only thing that should be different is the loss of water from the laundry.

That has got to be one of the silliest things I've ever had the misfortune to read ! What builds up in a lint filter is fibers from the clothing that ran through the dryer - who (except the strawmen 'materialists' lurking in that little empty skull of yours) would be unable to figure that out ? Even the most casual examination of REALITY would enable one to answer that question. Oh, wait - by 'fuzzy entropy', NO ONE CAN TRULY EXPLAIN WHAT BUILDS UP IN THE LINT FILTER ! There might be some 'alternative' to known 'materialistic processes', so it is wrong to say 'lint is fibers from the clothes that were dried', right ?