Second Law of Thermodynamics
BigCaesar999
think of it.
My letter is addressed to Timothy Wallace, however a response from most anyone
is welcomed. After, reading Timothy Wallace's rebuttal to Mark Isaac's 5 FAQs,
I was not persuaded at all. One of the major disagreements I had with Wallace
dealt with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Wallace's basic argument is that
life must go from order to disorder and the only way it doesn't is because of
the miracle of God's creation.
Wallace says he understand thermodynamics, but he obviously doesn't. The
Second Law of Thermodynamics states, 'in a spontaneous process, there is a net
increase in entropy.' He bases his premise on the fact that if the Earth was
left to itself, evolution could not happen because things in our universe must
get continuously disorderly. That premise is completely wrong. The equation
that goes along with the Second Law of Thermodynamics goes like this:
change in entropy of universe = (change in entropy of system + change in
entropy of surroundings) > 0
If you follow that equation, it is easy to see that the change in entropy of
the system such as the Earth could be negative, but if the overall change is
positive, it doesn't break the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The negative
change in entropy of the Earth is insignificant compared to the positive change
in the surroundings.
The argument that creationist would probably use against that is that the
Earth cannot be the exception to the rule, but the fact is its not an
exception. Because living things can take in energy, for a span of time we can
get more complex. However, ultimately our entropy does increase. When we die
and are decomposed into the ground, we become more disorderly. The short time
span in which we are 'complex' is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
My final argument is this. Even if I am wrong and evolution does break the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, so does Genesis. However, creationist use the
argument that God made the laws, so he can break them when he wants to. My
argument is why couldn't this omnipotent God break the laws when he created the
process of evolution.
Adam Marczyk
letter, so doubtless it will either be ignored or dismissed out of hand. But
you certainly get no blame for trying.
BigCaesar999 <bigcae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010130223951...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Murray
wrote:
To quote Paul Harvey "And now for the rest of the story".......I for
one would like to read Tim Wallace's contributions to the above
discussion.
Wade Hines
Sorry but you are feeding yet another misconception.
No single life form violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
This is true of an acorn growing into an oak or a calf growing
into a cow. Evolution can only be the result of the addition
of many individual life processes. If each life is itself
consistent with the 2nd law, the collective sum of many lives
must also be consistent with the 2nd law because you must add
the individual entropies because entropy is a state variable.
The premise that evolution involves even a temporary decrease in
entropy is quite simply wrong.
Matti Kaikkonen
Wade Hines <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3A780562...@rcn.com...
> The premise that evolution involves even a temporary decrease in
> entropy is quite simply wrong.
Maybe the term "local entropy" is more convenient. Locally, like in an open
system like the living cell, the direction of entropy changes are not
limited by any fundamental law. The 2nd Law has a meaning only in isolated
systems as a whole.
Dave Oldridge
<20010130223951...@ng-fq1.aol.com>:
I have posted this challenge here before, and I deliver it to any creationist
who crosses my path claiming that evolution violates the 2nd law. Feel free
to administer it.
Thermodynamics challenge for creationists who claim that evolution violates
the second law of thermodynamics:
If evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then it follows that
at least one hypothesized event in the evolution of man from a single celled
organism must violate it. My challenge to creationists who claim that the
evolution of man from micro-organism is a violation of the second law is for
them to produce one single, necessary hypothesized event in that evolution
that is a violation. If you cannot do this, then retract the claim or risk
being labelled a liar.
Note that the event must be a necessary step, must be a single event (no
grand hand wave here) and must clearly involve a physical violation of the
second law.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Richard Wein
Correct so far, I believe.
>The negative
>> change in entropy of the Earth is insignificant compared to the positive
change
>> in the surroundings.
>> The argument that creationist would probably use against that is
that the
>> Earth cannot be the exception to the rule, but the fact is its not an
>> exception. Because living things can take in energy, for a span of time
we can
>> get more complex. However, ultimately our entropy does increase.
>
>Sorry but you are feeding yet another misconception.
>
>No single life form violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
>This is true of an acorn growing into an oak or a calf growing
>into a cow. Evolution can only be the result of the addition
>of many individual life processes. If each life is itself
>consistent with the 2nd law, the collective sum of many lives
>must also be consistent with the 2nd law because you must add
>the individual entropies because entropy is a state variable.
>
>The premise that evolution involves even a temporary decrease in
>entropy is quite simply wrong.
Well, I'm pretty sure evolution has involved both increases and decreases in
local entropy at different times. But that's irrelevant.
I think the issue is more easily understood if one bears in mind that
thermodynamic entropy has nothing to do with organizational complexity at
the macroscopic level.
Which has greater thermodynamic entropy: a ton of cows, a ton of calfs or a
ton of worms? The answer has nothing to do with which is more evolved, more
developed, or more complex. It is instead determined by their thermodynamic
properties, basically their temperature.
(I'm not a physicist, and, if I'm wrong or have expressed this poorly, I
would welcome correction.)
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
Please change "nospam" to "rwein" in my email address.
Mike Goodrich
Nope.
The challenge for evolutionists, especially the materialist-reductionists,
is
different than the statements above indicate, which look like one of the
standard distortions/straw-men typically regurgitated. The actual problem
is and much more serious than the version above would give much insight
into.
NOTE to creationists: arguments that 'life violates 2LOT' or 'undirected
evolution violates 2LOT' are misguided, and in some sense incorrect as
typically stated.
HERE IS WHY: Life does not violate 2LOT. This fact however, rather
than being seen as a point in the evolutionist-materialist-reductionist
favor
is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his claims.
To see how, just read on.
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
system.
NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or expressions
in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
someday
be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull note
of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
of an argument using design vice how many demonstrate a
'sold-out' mentality and simply will not allow any consideration of
design based strictly on metaphysical/philosophical grounds, or they
seem to be some kind of extreme fundamentalist for pan-naturalism.
NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
But there comes times when some of these points must be
clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot of
these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
leeway.
-mg
Elmer Bataitis
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
Huh? Want to reword this to something that has a somewhat clearer
formulation?
Try this on for size:
1) At some point in the past, life did not exist.
2) Life exists now.
3) Therefore life began by some means.
Did these means violate any known physical laws?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************
nicho...@my-deja.com
Many of the creationists that actually think that evolution violates
the 2nd law of thermodynamics are so ignorant/uninformed/over-
indoctrinated/stupid/pick your adjective, that it's not even worth
speaking to them. Occasionally you run across one that, after a brief
explanation of the 2nd law, admits that they have little or no idea
what they're talking about. But you also get the squids that just sit
there and keep copying and pasting whatever BS quote they're using from
some christian pseudoscientist off of
www.radicalfundamentalistfruitloops.com. So, for the most part, I
think the best tactic is to just ignore them. If they're not even
intelligent enough or energetic enough to check whether a claim that's
so obviously invalid is true, they're not gonna make much sense on any
other topic.
The way I usually explain it, and it works if they're not a complete
doorknob, is this:
The 2nd law applies to closed systems. The universe is a closed
system, so the 2nd law applies to it. The earth is not a closed
system, so the 2nd law does not apply to it. Then some of them will
ask why the earth isn't a closed system. Tell them to go outside and
look up at that big ball of gas in the sky. Some other real Jeopardy
winners will then ask how something that applies to the entire universe
does not apply to the earth. I beg them not to procreate and go on my
merry way.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John Segerson
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
[snip]
cutting....{
> one of the
> standard distortions/straw-men typically regurgitated. }.....
> The actual problem
> is and much more serious than the version above would give much insight
> into.
>
> NOTE to creationists: arguments that 'life violates 2LOT' or 'undirected
> evolution violates 2LOT' are misguided, and in some sense incorrect as
> typically stated.
>
> HERE IS WHY: Life does not violate 2LOT. This fact however, rather
> than being seen as a point in the evolutionist-materialist-reductionist
> favor
> is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his claims.
> To see how, just read on.
>
pasting ...{> one of the
> standard distortions/straw-men typically regurgitated. }....
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
>
[snip]
ghos...@my-deja.com
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
> NOTE to creationists: arguments that 'life violates 2LOT' or
'undirected
> evolution violates 2LOT' are misguided, and in some sense incorrect as
> typically stated.
In most sense they seem to be incorrect.
> HERE IS WHY: Life does not violate 2LOT. This fact however, rather
> than being seen as a point in the
evolutionist-materialist-reductionist
> favor
> is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his
claims.
> To see how, just read on.
Right, the fact that there is no problem is a problem? Let's see.
Tell us:
1. What are the claims of the evolutionist-materialist-reductionist?
2. What are evolutionist-materialist-reductionists?
3. What is the difference between evolutionists and (2)?
4. Why the need to focus on (2)?
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
Why the limitation on the irreducible complexity? After all it is well
known that such systems do not need "intelligent design"?
Perhaps more interesting would be for you to show that such systems
could NOT arise. Trying the failed road of IC is not very encouraging to
your argument.
> NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or
expressions
> in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> someday
> be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
Note to anti-evolutionists: "Claims that Life does not violate SLOT but
that this forms a problem nevertheless, needs to be supported. Not by
pointing to absence of evidence but by providing for positive evidence.
> NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
note
> of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
> being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
> Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
> clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
> of an argument using design vice how many demonstrate a
> 'sold-out' mentality and simply will not allow any consideration of
> design based strictly on metaphysical/philosophical grounds, or they
> seem to be some kind of extreme fundamentalist for pan-naturalism.
>
> NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
> But there comes times when some of these points must be
> clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot
of
> these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
> leeway.
I am looking forward to you showing that the SLOT provides a problem for
the evolutionist. Especially since you made it clear that life does not
violate the SLOT.
Until creationists can provide not only a logical argument but provide
the supporting evidence, such assertions, in the past and future will
have little chance of succeeding.
Since life does not violate the SLOT, Mike needs to show us that his
example would violate the SLOT.
Should I hold my breath?
ghos...@my-deja.com
nyli...@frontiernet.net wrote:
> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> > MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> > your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how
spontaneous
> > chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> > in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions
and
> > the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> > storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using
thermionically
> > coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
frame,
> > in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> > system.
>
> Huh? Want to reword this to something that has a somewhat clearer
> formulation?
>
> Try this on for size:
>
> 1) At some point in the past, life did not exist.
> 2) Life exists now.
> 3) Therefore life began by some means.
>
> Did these means violate any known physical laws?
So far no evidence has been provided that it has. But if Mike can share
with us such evidence, then I encourage him to do so.
Tracy P. Hamilton
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
[snip]
> The challenge for evolutionists, especially the materialist-reductionists,
> is
> different than the statements above indicate, which look like one of the
> standard distortions/straw-men typically regurgitated. The actual problem
> is and much more serious than the version above would give much insight
> into.
>
> NOTE to creationists: arguments that 'life violates 2LOT' or 'undirected
> evolution violates 2LOT' are misguided, and in some sense incorrect as
> typically stated.
or even evolution violates 2LOT.
> HERE IS WHY: Life does not violate 2LOT. This fact however, rather
> than being seen as a point in the evolutionist-materialist-reductionist
> favor
> is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his claims.
> To see how, just read on.
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
This makes no sense. Is it a requirement that these things be shown
before one claims that even life itself (much less evolution)
follows the 2LOT, even though we do not know all of the chemical
reactions in living systems?
> NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or expressions
> in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> someday
> be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
You seem to misunderstand the POINT of thermodynamics completely.
It is to say what is forbidden and allowed.
If we are ignorant, we can't APPLY thermodynamics, and therefore
can not say forbidden or allowed. Specifically, saying that you have a
thermodynamic problem if you can't is wrong.
> NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull note
> of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
> being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
> Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
> clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
> of an argument using design
I would like to note more bogus things about your response.
It seems to be about abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution
obeying the 2LOT is a snap to prove, and is the usual topic
of such misguided creationist arguments.
> vice how many demonstrate a
> 'sold-out' mentality and simply will not allow any consideration of
> design based strictly on metaphysical/philosophical grounds, or they
> seem to be some kind of extreme fundamentalist for pan-naturalism.
>
> NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
It seems like hash.
> But there comes times when some of these points must be
> clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot of
> these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
> leeway.
Funny, for a thermodynamic argument, I did not see any positive
delta G's pointing out that evolution (abiogenesis) is forbidden.
Nevertheless, I will make the 2LOT argument for evolution.
Evolution (or any other putative process that populations of
organisms do) is just the sum of what the living organisms do.
delta S (universe is positive) for what each of these organisms
do, since life does not violate the 2LOT. Therefore, delta S
(universe) for the process is just the sum of delta S (universe)
for individuals. The sum of all positive numbers is itself a
positive numer (I hope you dont require a proof of that).
I can't recall a creationist EVER answering such a simple argument.
Be as harsh as you like.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Geoff Sheffield
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
>
NOTE to mg: Before I get started on this, could you show me that
it is a necessary condition for evolution or abiogenesis?
FURTHER NOTE to mg: Saying the connection is obvious just won't do.
I want to see the math.
[snip]
--
Geoff Sheffield
Gavin Tabor
>
> <Big snip>
>
> Many of the creationists that actually think that evolution violates
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics are so ignorant/uninformed/over-
> indoctrinated/stupid/pick your adjective, that it's not even worth
> speaking to them. Occasionally you run across one that, after a brief
> explanation of the 2nd law, admits that they have little or no idea
> what they're talking about. But you also get the squids that just sit
> there and keep copying and pasting whatever BS quote they're using from
> some christian pseudoscientist off of
> www.radicalfundamentalistfruitloops.com. So, for the most part, I
> think the best tactic is to just ignore them. If they're not even
> intelligent enough or energetic enough to check whether a claim that's
> so obviously invalid is true, they're not gonna make much sense on any
> other topic.
>
> The way I usually explain it, and it works if they're not a complete
> doorknob, is this:
>
> The 2nd law applies to closed systems.
Not true. The statement "Entropy increases" applies to closed
(technically isolated) systems. Other formulations of the 2nd
law do apply to open systems, however they provide no constraints
on what happens to the entropy.
Apart from that, your statements are entirely correct.
> The universe is a closed
> system, so the 2nd law applies to it. The earth is not a closed
> system, so the 2nd law does not apply to it. Then some of them will
> ask why the earth isn't a closed system. Tell them to go outside and
> look up at that big ball of gas in the sky. Some other real Jeopardy
> winners will then ask how something that applies to the entire universe
> does not apply to the earth. I beg them not to procreate and go on my
> merry way.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Gavin
--
Dr. Gavin Tabor
School of Engineering and Computer Science
Department of Engineering
University of Exeter
rokimo...@my-deja.com
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
> news:20010130223951...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
Snip
You will have to rethink this argument. You are essentially saying that
it is OK for the creationist to lie about the second law of
thermodynamics in relation to biological evolution because some
unsupportable probability arguments about the likelihood of abiogenesis
occuring could mean that they might be correct about something else. The
problem is that they can't seem to demonstrate that they are correct
about their other inferences either. This could explain the behavior of
people like Wallace. I guess it is easy to overlook a few things that we
can determine are lies, if you think that you are right about other
things that we have less data on, and can't come to a verifiable
conclusion either way.
Not a good way to win an argument.
Ron Okimoto
Gavin Tabor
>
> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> > MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> > your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> > chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> > in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> > the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> > storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> > coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> > in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> > system.
>
> Huh? Want to reword this to something that has a somewhat clearer
> formulation?
Hum. IIRC the condition for a chemical reaction to proceed
spontaneously is that dG<0, which is one formulation of the 2nd
law. So what he is asking is that someone shows him that dG<0
for all reactions in the synthesis of a DNA molecule. If you put
the appropriate chemicals together in a way that dG<0, then
of course the spontaneous chemical reactions will get started ('emerge')
... thats what spontaneous means. Given that
protein biochemists do this sort of thing (synthesise DNA that is)
all the time, its pretty clear that dG<0 for all the steps,
otherwise they wouldn't get their DNA molecules out the end.
I'm certain thats not what he thought he was asking. I'm pretty
sure that it is what he was actually asking. A little knowledge
is a dangerous thing.
Gavin
>
> Try this on for size:
>
> 1) At some point in the past, life did not exist.
> 2) Life exists now.
> 3) Therefore life began by some means.
>
> Did these means violate any known physical laws?
>
> **********************************************************
> Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
> Planetech Services -Hobbes
> 716-442-2884
> **********************************************************
--
Mike Goodrich
"Elmer Bataitis" <elmerb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A78412D...@yahoo.com...
> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> > MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> > your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> > chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> > in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> > the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> > storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> > coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
frame,
> > in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> > system.
>
> Huh? Want to reword this to something that has a somewhat clearer
> formulation?
>
> Try this on for size:
>
> 1) At some point in the past, life did not exist.
> 2) Life exists now.
> 3) Therefore life began by some means.
>
> Did these means violate any known physical laws?
>
I suggest you consider this post:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=713786958
cheers,
-mg
Adam Marczyk
news:U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
[snip]
> The challenge for evolutionists, especially the materialist-reductionists,
is
> different than the statements above indicate, which look like one of the
> standard distortions/straw-men typically regurgitated. The actual problem
> is and much more serious than the version above would give much insight
> into.
>
> NOTE to creationists: arguments that 'life violates 2LOT' or 'undirected
> evolution violates 2LOT' are misguided, and in some sense incorrect as
> typically stated.
>
> HERE IS WHY: Life does not violate 2LOT. This fact however, rather
> than being seen as a point in the evolutionist-materialist-reductionist
> favor
> is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his claims.
> To see how, just read on.
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
I have a better question for _you_, Mike. Explain to us how any of this
happened in _your_ model.
Now watch as he invokes "Goddidit," thereby showing us that creationist
arguments are unscientific and entirely dependent on special pleading.
[snip]
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
Would you please concatenate your chain with Rogers' ?
> favor
> is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his
claims.
> To see how, just read on.
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
This is analogous of asking physicists to calculate the energy levels
of the uranium atom from scratch, else materialist-reductionist quantum
mechanics has big problems.
So we do something simpler: we do the experiment. Every DNA synthesis
(in ribosomes or in PCR reactions) proves that it can be done.
> NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or
expressions
> in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> someday
> be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
Not necessary. The experiment says it's OK.
BTW, I still don't see how the 2Lot argues powerfully against our
current understanding of evolution.
> NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
note
> of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
> being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
> Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
> clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
> of an argument using design
No problem. As soon as you present to us the methods that said designer
used. Of course they have to be consistent with physics and chemistry,
thus the designer is bound by the 2LoT.
*Unlimited* designers (aka dei ex machina) have no place in science.
They explain too much ..... ;-)
vice how many demonstrate a
> 'sold-out' mentality and simply will not allow any consideration of
> design based strictly on metaphysical/philosophical grounds, or they
> seem to be some kind of extreme fundamentalist for pan-naturalism.
>
> NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
> But there comes times when some of these points must be
> clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot
of
> these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
> leeway.
No problem. However, the content-to-rhetorics ratio of your posts could
definitely improved, IMHO.
Regards,
HRG.
> -mg
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
reductionist
Would you please concatenate your chain with Rogers' ?
> favor
> is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his
claims.
> To see how, just read on.
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
This is analogous of asking physicists to calculate the energy levels
of the uranium atom from scratch, else materialist-reductionist quantum
mechanics has big problems.
So we do something simpler: we do the experiment. Every DNA synthesis
(in ribosomes or in PCR reactions) proves that it can be done.
> NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or
expressions
> in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> someday
> be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
Not necessary. The experiment says it's OK.
BTW, I still don't see how the 2Lot argues powerfully against our
current understanding of evolution.
> NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
note
> of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
> being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
> Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
> clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
> of an argument using design
No problem. As soon as you present to us the methods that said designer
used. Of course they have to be consistent with physics and chemistry,
thus the designer is bound by the 2LoT.
*Unlimited* designers (aka dei ex machina) have no place in science.
They explain too much ..... ;-)
vice how many demonstrate a
> 'sold-out' mentality and simply will not allow any consideration of
> design based strictly on metaphysical/philosophical grounds, or they
> seem to be some kind of extreme fundamentalist for pan-naturalism.
>
> NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
> But there comes times when some of these points must be
> clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot
of
> these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
> leeway.
No problem. However, the content-to-rhetorics ratio of your posts could
R. Tang
I suggest you actually do some thermodynamics (might be tough; it
involves math) instead of the garbage put out by creationists.
I also suggest that you might do something useful and actually
operationalize "irreducible complexity" into a useful form for
observations and experiments.
--
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Syvanen
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
>
> NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or
expressions
> in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> someday
> be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
Oh very clever. Then your challenge cannot be refuted. Since
no one has yet succeeded in carrying out
"spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions,". Nor, and this is related, has anyone
succeeded in synthesizing ribose phosphate using prebiotic life
conditions. Since we have absolutely no idea how ribose phosphate
chemistry began, we cannot begin to judge the thermodynamics of this
unknown chemistry.
(BTW, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and read some meaning
into your quote, as stated it really doesn't make too much sense)
Mike Syvanen
Wade Hines
Richard Wein wrote:
>
> Wade Hines wrote in message <3A780562...@rcn.com>...
> >Sorry but you are feeding yet another misconception.
> >
> >No single life form violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> >
> >This is true of an acorn growing into an oak or a calf growing
> >into a cow. Evolution can only be the result of the addition
> >of many individual life processes. If each life is itself
> >consistent with the 2nd law, the collective sum of many lives
> >must also be consistent with the 2nd law because you must add
> >the individual entropies because entropy is a state variable.
> >
> >The premise that evolution involves even a temporary decrease in
> >entropy is quite simply wrong.
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure evolution has involved both increases and decreases in
> local entropy at different times. But that's irrelevant.
Very irrelevant but also hard to know what you mean.
To evaluate a change in entropy one needs to gather up all of
the bits of state 1 at time T1 and then look at all those bits
in state 2 at time T2. You need to make sure you haven't added
or lost matter=bits.
Because entropy is a state function, it doesn't matter how we
get from state 1 at T1 to state 2 at T2. If work has been done
on our bits or our bits have done work there are ways to measure
the change in entropy outside our bits.
I can wrap my mind around the gross reactions involved in acorn -> oak.
You start with a balanced aquarium and extrapolate up towards a
biodome. Somehow you need to go back and find all the CO2 molecules
that wound up as wood, bark and leaves and measure those in state 1
back at time 1 when the oak was an acorn. We have to do the same
for all the H2O that got split to make the H-parts of hydrocarbons
and the O part of the O2 exhaust. Then we have to track down every
other detail. The fact that this is basically impossible to do in
practise doesn't matter. We can also look at all the energy flux
and for an oak this is a net conversion of visible light to chemical
bond energy and irradiated heat. There is math to do the accounting
and each living system obeys the laws of thermodynamics including
the 2nd law.
> I think the issue is more easily understood if one bears in mind that
> thermodynamic entropy has nothing to do with organizational complexity at
> the macroscopic level.
> Which has greater thermodynamic entropy: a ton of cows, a ton of calfs or a
> ton of worms? The answer has nothing to do with which is more evolved, more
> developed, or more complex. It is instead determined by their thermodynamic
> properties, basically their temperature.
and chemical composition. There isn't a significant entropy difference
between a ton of calfs and that ton of calfs after it is sent through
a meat grinder. A difference arises when the chemical composition
changes as the residual enzymes autodigest the gore.
Wade Hines
Mike Goodrich wrote:
> The challenge for evolutionists, especially the materialist-reductionists,
> is
> different than the statements above indicate, which look like one of the
> standard distortions/straw-men typically regurgitated. The actual problem
> is and much more serious than the version above would give much insight
> into.
Please evaluate the trueorigins website and see that these strawmen are
in fact put in place by actual creationists and are not just practice
dummies invented to make creationists look bad.
> NOTE to creationists: arguments that 'life violates 2LOT' or 'undirected
> evolution violates 2LOT' are misguided, and in some sense incorrect as
> typically stated.
Not "in some sense" but rather explicitly wrong.
> HERE IS WHY: Life does not violate 2LOT. This fact however, rather
> than being seen as a point in the evolutionist-materialist-reductionist
> favor
> is exactly the opposite and argues very powerfully *against* his claims.
True in the first part, wishful thinking on the second.
> To see how, just read on.
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
Simply start away from equilibrium. There is nothing about
thermodynamics
that dictates that a system must proceed toward equilibrium by the most
direct route. Self sustaining hypercycles are possible and have been
demonstrated for system kept away from equilibrium by a constant energy
influx. Nothing about this has any defined connection to irreducible
complexity. Your mission is a non starter having been fulfilled before
you brought it up.
> NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or expressions
> in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> someday
> be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
Yet you desire your own ignorance of self sustaining hypercycles to
excuse your ridiculous claims. Seems two-faced on your part. Also,
you went wishy-washy and said "in some sense incorrect" when you
might just understand that the correct wording is "in all senses
incorrect".
> NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull note
> of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
> being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
There is nothing to your bizarre claim. There is nothing about
thermodynamics that conflicts with synthesis of complex organics
from high energy reactants. There is not logical connection to
irreducible complexity in anything you have presented.
> Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
> clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
> of an argument using design vice how many demonstrate a
> 'sold-out' mentality and simply will not allow any consideration of
> design based strictly on metaphysical/philosophical grounds, or they
> seem to be some kind of extreme fundamentalist for pan-naturalism.
One may easily consider design. In fact it is so easy as to be
an utterly worthless explanation. Ask any question and answer
"because it was designed that way". Even intelligent toddlers
demand better.
> NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
> But there comes times when some of these points must be
> clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot of
> these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
> leeway.
There was nothing harsh about it. Your claims are without merit,
however, and that makes their rather bombastic presentation rather
comical.
Wade Hines
Gavin Tabor wrote:
>
> nicho...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > <Big snip>
> > The way I usually explain it, and it works if they're not a complete
> > doorknob, is this:
> >
> > The 2nd law applies to closed systems.
>
> Not true. The statement "Entropy increases" applies to closed
> (technically isolated) systems. Other formulations of the 2nd
> law do apply to open systems, however they provide no constraints
> on what happens to the entropy.
Thank you Gavin. Let's all repeat that the 2nd law applies to
more than just closed systems. Why it even applies to non-
equilibrium systems but very very few are talented enough
to do that math.
Elmer Bataitis
No, sorry. If I wanted to do that I could spend my days reading
dejanews. I read the posts here. That's enough to keep track of
in my day.
What physical law does life violate? What physical law is
violated by life originating?
leonardo dasso
another (lengthy) version of the watchmaker argument.
regards
leo
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>"BigCaesar999" <bigcae...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010130223951.00596.
>
>MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
>your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
>chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
>in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
>the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
>storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
>coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
>in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
>system.
well we know evolution, as we OBSERVE it, including speciation does
not violate the slot. there is no reason to assume anything in
evolution DID because it does not NOW violate the law.
by the by...where's the mechanism of creation?
oh...i forgot...you guys dont have to answer ANY questions...sorry.
>
>NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
>current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or expressions
>in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
>someday
>be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
handwaving? nah, we leave that to the creationists. they cant even
tell us how creationism works; thats why they spend all their time
critizing evolution, rather than defending creationism.
>
>NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
>But there comes times when some of these points must be
>clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot of
>these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
>leeway.
>
you admitted life as it runs today does not violate the 2nd law. life
today includes evolution...since its OBSERVED as you admit. if god is
orderly and logical, his laws are as well. his laws include thermo and
evolution. therefore evolution does not violate the 2nd as you admit
above, QED.
now, then...where's the mechanism for creationism?? betcha you NEVER
answer THAT...
Vincent Maycock
>
>No single life form violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That's what he said.
snip
>The premise that evolution involves even a temporary decrease in
>entropy is quite simply wrong.
Right; the decrease in entropy associated with increases in complexity is
swamped by changes in entropy associated with, say, fluctuations in
temperature.
--
Vince
Vincent Maycock
Wade Hines wrote in message <3A78731A...@rcn.com>...
>
>
>Gavin Tabor wrote:
>>
>> nicho...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> > <Big snip>
>
>
>> > The way I usually explain it, and it works if they're not a complete
>> > doorknob, is this:
>> >
>> > The 2nd law applies to closed systems.
>>
>> Not true. The statement "Entropy increases" applies to closed
>> (technically isolated) systems. Other formulations of the 2nd
>> law do apply to open systems, however they provide no constraints
>> on what happens to the entropy.
>
>Thank you Gavin. Let's all repeat that the 2nd law applies to
>more than just closed systems.
Some formulations of it appear to apply to open systems, although the fact
that the universe is apparently a "closed system" may be causing problems,
here.
>Why it even applies to non-
>equilibrium systems but very very few are talented enough
>to do that math.
What are you talking about? One formulation of the 2nd Law is that isolated
systems tends toward equilibrium.
--
Vince
Eros
>
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
This sounds like an advertisment for the US$1.35 Million "Origin of life
Prize" at http://www.us.net/life/
Since, like a whole lot of other biological molecules, DNA contains less
energy than its constituent elements, its formation from those elements
would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law. Are
you suggesting that some sort of supernatural energy would have been
required to "kick-start" the formation of the first primitive DNA molecule.
I say primitve because there is no reason to believe that the first
self-replicating biotic molecule was anything like present-day DNA. And what
do you term a "realistic time frame"?
EROS.
Eros
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
>
>
> MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time frame,
> in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> system.
You might also like to check out;-
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/hetlsa/index.htm
EROS.
Wade Hines
Vincent Maycock wrote:
>
> Wade Hines wrote in message <3A780562...@rcn.com>...
> snip
> >The premise that evolution involves even a temporary decrease in
> >entropy is quite simply wrong.
> Right; the decrease in entropy associated with increases in complexity is
> swamped by changes in entropy associated with, say, fluctuations in
> temperature.
It isn't a matter of being swamped. There simple isn't a decrease in
entropy associated with any sort of seeming increase in complexity
one might attribute to evolution. The evolution of proto-cat to lions
and tigers and housecats isn't a chemical reaction of the sort that
goes 3 protocats --> 1 lion + 1 tiger + 1 housecat. If one were to
include all the generations along the way ...
1 population of protocats 300 million years ago + food ->
1 population of protocats' 299,999,999 years ago
with a net positve increase in entropy. Iterate forward with
every generation yielding another positve increase in entropy.
Where is there any sense of a decrease in entropy?
Wade Hines
Vincent Maycock wrote:
>
> Wade Hines wrote in message <3A78731A...@rcn.com>...
> >Why it even applies to non-
> >equilibrium systems but very very few are talented enough
> >to do that math.
> What are you talking about? One formulation of the 2nd Law is that isolated
> systems tends toward equilibrium.
That is a specific case of the 2nd law, not the 2nd law.
BigCaesar999
again and he did provide a rebuttal to one of my arguements. One I really did
not understand. He said that the formula that I gave that would allow a system
such as Earth to have a slight decrease in entropy, although hypothetically
possible, is in practice impossible. I find it funny that although creationist
use a lot of math formulas to disprove evolution, when evolutionists use math
formulas they disregard it.
The next argument I had, had to deal with Wallace stating that the
reason we are an open system has nothing to do with evolution breaking the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. He claimed that raw energy is not enough and we
need an information carrying molecule, such as DNA, to use the energy. He also
said we need energy processing methods such as metabolism or photosynthesis. To
answer the second arguement, I would say that the DNA directs the metabolic
processes. The first arguement has a lot to do with how DNA was formed. That is
a question a 17 year old Biology student cannot answer. However, I do have
several questions for Wallace or anyone else who would answer it.
1.) What is a self-replicating molecule? I ask that because Wallace questions
how such a molecule could form randomly.
2.) Is DNA a self-replicating molecule?
3.) Why couldn't DNA form from the organic pool of elements at the beginning
of time?
4.) Nobody has addressed the last paragraph of my essay, which says that even
if evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, why couldn't God break
the law to start evolution, like creationists assume he did when he created
life.
Adam Marczyk
in entropy.
www.freespeech.org/ebonmusings/thermodynamics.html
BigCaesar999 <bigcae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010202165358...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> Hey guys, as expected Wallace directed me to his FAQ rebuttal. I read it
over
> again and he did provide a rebuttal to one of my arguements. One I really
did
> not understand. He said that the formula that I gave that would allow a
system
> such as Earth to have a slight decrease in entropy, although
hypothetically
> possible, is in practice impossible. I find it funny that although
creationist
> use a lot of math formulas to disprove evolution, when evolutionists use
math
> formulas they disregard it.
> The next argument I had, had to deal with Wallace stating that the
> reason we are an open system has nothing to do with evolution breaking the
> Second Law of Thermodynamics. He claimed that raw energy is not enough and
we
> need an information carrying molecule, such as DNA, to use the energy.
See the above link. The creationist claim that entropy cannot decrease
without an "informational code" or "program" or some such is a fabrication
and untrue. It's a lie, plain and simple. The 2LoT does not concern itself
with mechanisms.
> He also
> said we need energy processing methods such as metabolism or
photosynthesis.
And we have them. What's the problem here?
> To
> answer the second arguement, I would say that the DNA directs the
metabolic
> processes. The first arguement has a lot to do with how DNA was formed.
That is
> a question a 17 year old Biology student cannot answer. However, I do have
> several questions for Wallace or anyone else who would answer it.
>
> 1.) What is a self-replicating molecule? I ask that because Wallace
questions
> how such a molecule could form randomly.
>
> 2.) Is DNA a self-replicating molecule?
>
> 3.) Why couldn't DNA form from the organic pool of elements at the
beginning
> of time?
>
> 4.) Nobody has addressed the last paragraph of my essay, which says that
even
> if evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, why couldn't God
break
> the law to start evolution, like creationists assume he did when he
created
> life.
>
--
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>Hey guys, as expected Wallace directed me to his FAQ rebuttal. I read it over
>again and he did provide a rebuttal to one of my arguements. One I really did
>not understand. He said that the formula that I gave that would allow a system
>such as Earth to have a slight decrease in entropy, although hypothetically
>possible, is in practice impossible. I find it funny that although creationist
>use a lot of math formulas to disprove evolution, when evolutionists use math
>formulas they disregard it.
> The next argument I had, had to deal with Wallace stating that the
>reason we are an open system has nothing to do with evolution breaking the
>Second Law of Thermodynamics. He claimed that raw energy is not enough and we
>need an information carrying molecule, such as DNA, to use the energy. He also
>said we need energy processing methods such as metabolism or photosynthesis.
It is true that some sort of process is required to use the energy,
and it may be interesting to discuss this process. However, since
entropy is a state function that does not depend on the path between
states, the question of process is independent of and distinct from
any considerations of entropy.
>To
>answer the second arguement, I would say that the DNA directs the metabolic
>processes. The first arguement has a lot to do with how DNA was formed. That is
>a question a 17 year old Biology student cannot answer. However, I do have
>several questions for Wallace or anyone else who would answer it.
>
>1.) What is a self-replicating molecule? I ask that because Wallace questions
>how such a molecule could form randomly.
>
>2.) Is DNA a self-replicating molecule?
>
>3.) Why couldn't DNA form from the organic pool of elements at the beginning
>of time?
>
>4.) Nobody has addressed the last paragraph of my essay, which says that even
>if evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, why couldn't God break
>the law to start evolution, like creationists assume he did when he created
>life.
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
Eros
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:903A757F5doldr...@154.11.89.178...
> bigcae...@aol.com (BigCaesar999) wrote in
> <20010130223951...@ng-fq1.aol.com>:
>
> >This is a letter I submited to the true.origins website. Tell me what you
> >guys think of it.
> >
> >My letter is addressed to Timothy Wallace, however a response from most
> >anyone is welcomed. After, reading Timothy Wallace's rebuttal to Mark
> >Isaac's 5 FAQs, I was not persuaded at all. One of the major
disagreements
> >basic argument is that life must go from order to disorder and the only
> >way it doesn't is because of the miracle of God's creation.
> > Wallace says he understand thermodynamics, but he obviously doesn't.
> > The
> >Second Law of Thermodynamics states, 'in a spontaneous process, there is
a
> >net increase in entropy.' He bases his premise on the fact that if the
> >Earth was left to itself, evolution could not happen because things in
our
> >universe must get continuously disorderly. That premise is completely
> >wrong. The equation that goes along with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> >goes like this:
> >
> > change in entropy of universe = (change in entropy of system +
change
> > in
> >entropy of surroundings) > 0
> >
> >If you follow that equation, it is easy to see that the change in entropy
> >of the system such as the Earth could be negative, but if the overall
The
> >negative change in entropy of the Earth is insignificant compared to the
> >positive change in the surroundings.
> > The argument that creationist would probably use against that is
that
> > the
> >Earth cannot be the exception to the rule, but the fact is its not an
> >exception. Because living things can take in energy, for a span of time
we
> >we die and are decomposed into the ground, we become more disorderly. The
> >short time span in which we are 'complex' is insignificant in the grand
> >scheme of things.
> > My final argument is this. Even if I am wrong and evolution does
> > break the
> >Second Law of Thermodynamics, so does Genesis. However, creationist use
> >the argument that God made the laws, so he can break them when he wants
> >to. My argument is why couldn't this omnipotent God break the laws when
he
> >created the process of evolution.
>
creationist
> who crosses my path claiming that evolution violates the 2nd law. Feel
free
> to administer it.
>
> Thermodynamics challenge for creationists who claim that evolution
violates
> the second law of thermodynamics:
>
> If evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then it follows
that
> at least one hypothesized event in the evolution of man from a single
celled
> organism must violate it. My challenge to creationists who claim that the
> evolution of man from micro-organism is a violation of the second law is
for
> them to produce one single, necessary hypothesized event in that evolution
> that is a violation. If you cannot do this, then retract the claim or
risk
> being labelled a liar.
>
> Note that the event must be a necessary step, must be a single event (no
> grand hand wave here) and must clearly involve a physical violation of the
> second law.
Now THIS is really getting down basics, where all discussions about
evolution and the 2nd law should be. I would go further and insist that this
event should be at the molecular level! Although I doubt if there are any
creationists well enough educated in thermodynamics to argue this point
scientifically.
EROS.
Eros
[a lot of rambling unscientific philosophical guff deleted]
>Imagine someone telling you that if an alien found a computer
>hummingalong making calculations, running merrily along according
>to natural law and the availability of energy (which is what it does much
>of the time), that that means it is reasonable to infer that natural law
and energy
>alone are responsible for its genesis, without any need to ever consider
the
> indiaction of the obvious fingerprints of a designer/builder.
It would certainly be reasonable to infer that "natural law and energy
alone" were responsible for the "genesis" of that "computer" if it
demonstrated an ability to reproduce itself via purely natural means that
did not involve the necessity of supernatural creator.
>See what happens guys when folks take thmeselves too seriously and resort
>to sophmoric arguments and generally hold folks in contempt who are just
>not willing to buy into their sweeping inferences without more convincing
proof ?
>(whatever you consider that to be)
Yes, we see it every time a creationist posts a message here. That's the
basis of their whole argument.
>Well I suppose I've waxed philosophical enough for now, I hope I wasn't
boring,
You were. But we're used to it by now.
EROS.
Eros
over
> again and he did provide a rebuttal to one of my arguements. One I really
did
> not understand. He said that the formula that I gave that would allow a
system
> such as Earth to have a slight decrease in entropy, although
hypothetically
> possible, is in practice impossible. I find it funny that although
creationist
> use a lot of math formulas to disprove evolution, when evolutionists use
math
> formulas they disregard it.
> The next argument I had, had to deal with Wallace stating that the
> reason we are an open system has nothing to do with evolution breaking the
> Second Law of Thermodynamics. He claimed that raw energy is not enough and
we
> need an information carrying molecule, such as DNA, to use the energy.
This is a classic creationist 2nd Law setup. Since they are compelled to
bring God into the equation at some stage they subtly insinuate this
"intelligent design" clause into every argument, so that at the end they can
simply say that nature just isn't enough to explain the origin of life, some
"intelligence" was required. (the old "Goddidit" argument cleverly cloaked
in pseudo-science)
DNA is indeed a self-replicating information-carrying molecule. But the
information in it is more like the information contained in a personal diary
than a design schematic. DNA is not the "perfect" set of instructions
required to produce a living organism as creationists would have the
uneducated public believe. The information contained in DNA is exactly as
the Theory of Evolution predicts, a sequence of amino acids that has been
built up over time... parts added here... improvements made there.. and bits
that are totally useless and unused. But what is really compelling proof for
evolution is the fact that this "excess baggage" of useless genes follows
distinct patterns that confirm the relationships between living groups seen
in other fields of science such palaeontology. For a creationist to claim
that some kind of intelligence was involved in designing the DNA molecule is
to admit that on a biomolecular level this "intelligence" was at best sloppy
in its designs and at worst downright incompetent.
> 4.) Nobody has addressed the last paragraph of my essay, which says that
even
> if evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, why couldn't God
break
> the law to start evolution, like creationists assume he did when he
created
> life.
If God really existed and he was all-powerful as Creationists claim, of
course he could have "violated" his own laws of creation to start evolution.
However a Creationist could never entertain the notion that God would use
something so barbaric as evolution to produce Man. It would mean that death
preceeded the creation of Man... falsifying their wishful belief in
redemption from sin and a life ever-lasting. Therefore they are locked into
instantaneous creation and a "young" earth because of the ridiculous
concept of "original sin". Their only basis for this core belief is a
literal interpretation of the Bible. Which means that all other arguments
(scientific or not) must be in total agreement with the stories in the Bible
as well. There can be no exceptions.
EROS.
Dave Oldridge
It really doesn't matter whether it's at the molecular level or on a thermal
level....as long as the violation is shown to be necessary to the
hypothtesis. But, of course, it isn't going to happen. So far the only
creationists who have responded have claimed that they do not have to respond
(how's that for illogic?). Then whey wander off and claim to have responded
(shrug)...
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
=============================================================================
=================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Mike Goodrich
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:959ms1$qj2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
No Hans, bad analogy!
> So we do something simpler: we do the experiment. Every DNA synthesis
> (in ribosomes or in PCR reactions) proves that it can be done.
>
Nope. Berra's Blunder or Investigator interference. You need to re-read
what I actually said.
> > NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> > current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or
> expressions
> > in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> > someday
> > be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
>
> Not necessary. The experiment says it's OK.
>
Nope. E.g., Miller-Urey proves just the opposite of what
is commonly claimed! (think about it)
> BTW, I still don't see how the 2Lot argues powerfully against our
> current understanding of evolution.
>
It certainly argues against material-reductionism in the form of
abiogenesis 'hopes' - many of which you yourself have expressed.
Hope, er, Faith in Naturalism; why Hans, I didn't realize you were
so religious! ;-)
My original challenge states why.
Further, 2LoT definetly argues against the increase in information
content in the biocosm as Spetner has stated. It certainly cannot be
understood as a natural law/principle that could facilitate it. Our
only precedent is for designers to contrive systems which constrain
material/energy movement so as to counter the natural influence of
2LoT to adversly affect such predesignated movements.
The fact that once contrived/arranged, such systems then mitigate
against the destructive/degenerative affects of 2LoT in no way
supports the concept that such systems achieve their genesis
naturally in concert with or in spite of the 2LoT.
To think otherwise is the great non-sequitur of materialism.
> > NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
> note
> > of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
> > being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
> > Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
> > clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
> > of an argument using design
>
> No problem. As soon as you present to us the methods that said designer
> used.
Not necessary. It's a forensic inference. A-priori categorical exclusion
of any non-naturalistic causation is unscientific and results in an
unreliable
methodology since it is then incapable of recognizing non-material
causation (since it is excluded a-priori, of course).
>Of course they have to be consistent with physics and chemistry,
> thus the designer is bound by the 2LoT.
>
Only for its subsequent operation - IF He desires it to run unattended
according to natural law. Not so with the systems inception.
> *Unlimited* designers (aka dei ex machina) have no place in science.
> They explain too much ..... ;-)
>
Just the same as pan-naturalistic *(insert plea to naturalism-of-the-gaps
events here)*.
> vice how many demonstrate a
> > 'sold-out' mentality and simply will not allow any consideration of
> > design based strictly on metaphysical/philosophical grounds, or they
> > seem to be some kind of extreme fundamentalist for pan-naturalism.
> >
> > NOTE to all: I am sorry if this post strikes some of you as harsh.
> > But there comes times when some of these points must be
> > clarified/challenged as forcefully as possible, and since I let a lot
> of
> > these 2LOT arguments go without comment, I ask you all for some
> > leeway.
>
> No problem. However, the content-to-rhetorics ratio of your posts could
> definitely improved, IMHO.
>
Just as your sophmorism-to-more-reasonableness ratio ...
with no ill will,
-mg
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
><hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:959ms1$qj2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
>>
>
>
>> BTW, I still don't see how the 2Lot argues powerfully against our
>> current understanding of evolution.
>>
>
>
>It certainly argues against material-reductionism in the form of
>abiogenesis 'hopes' - many of which you yourself have expressed.
>Hope, er, Faith in Naturalism; why Hans, I didn't realize you were
>so religious! ;-)
>
>My original challenge states why.
IOW he doesnt answer the question
>
>Further, 2LoT definetly argues against the increase in information
>content in the biocosm as Spetner has stated. It certainly cannot be
>understood as a natural law/principle that could facilitate it.
evolution does not contradict the slot. if it does, perhaps the slot
is wrong. prove your case.
Our
>only precedent is for designers to contrive systems which constrain
>material/energy movement so as to counter the natural influence of
>2LoT to adversly affect such predesignated movements.
>
>The fact that once contrived/arranged, such systems then mitigate
>against the destructive/degenerative affects of 2LoT in no way
>supports the concept that such systems achieve their genesis
>naturally in concert with or in spite of the 2LoT.
>
>To think otherwise is the great non-sequitur of materialism.
>
>
>> > NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
>> note
>> > of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
>> > being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
>> > Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
>> > clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
>> > of an argument using design
>>
>> No problem. As soon as you present to us the methods that said designer
>> used.
>
>
>Not necessary. It's a forensic inference. A-priori categorical exclusion
>of any non-naturalistic causation is unscientific and results in an
>unreliable
>methodology since it is then incapable of recognizing non-material
>causation (since it is excluded a-priori, of course).
meaningless. tell us how to define and measure a non natural cause.
tell us where one may be observed.
>
Robert Dean
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3a7f6555....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> On 5 Feb 2001 20:49:14 -0500, "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> ><hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:959ms1$qj2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> >>
> >
> >
> >> BTW, I still don't see how the 2Lot argues powerfully against our
> >> current understanding of evolution.
> >>
> >
> >
> >It certainly argues against material-reductionism in the form of
> >abiogenesis 'hopes' - many of which you yourself have expressed.
> >Hope, er, Faith in Naturalism; why Hans, I didn't realize you were
> >so religious! ;-)
> >
> >My original challenge states why.
>
> IOW he doesnt answer the question
>
> >
> >Further, 2LoT definetly argues against the increase in information
> >content in the biocosm as Spetner has stated. It certainly cannot be
> >understood as a natural law/principle that could facilitate it.
>
> evolution does not contradict the slot. if it does, perhaps the slot
> is wrong. prove your case.
>
exist then it is evolution which would lose out!
>
[snip]> >
> >> > NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
> >
> >Not necessary. It's a forensic inference. A-priori categorical
exclusion
> >of any non-naturalistic causation is unscientific and results in an
> >unreliable
> >methodology since it is then incapable of recognizing non-material
> >causation (since it is excluded a-priori, of course).
>
> meaningless. tell us how to define and measure a non natural cause.
> tell us where one may be observed.
>
and reach every height?
> >
>
wf...@ptd.net
>
><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:3a7f6555....@news.ptdprolog.net...
>> On 5 Feb 2001 20:49:14 -0500, "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:959ms1$qj2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> >> In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> BTW, I still don't see how the 2Lot argues powerfully against our
>> >> current understanding of evolution.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >It certainly argues against material-reductionism in the form of
>> >abiogenesis 'hopes' - many of which you yourself have expressed.
>> >Hope, er, Faith in Naturalism; why Hans, I didn't realize you were
>> >so religious! ;-)
>> >
>> >My original challenge states why.
>>
>> IOW he doesnt answer the question
>>
>> >
>> >Further, 2LoT definetly argues against the increase in information
>> >content in the biocosm as Spetner has stated. It certainly cannot be
>> >understood as a natural law/principle that could facilitate it.
>>
>> evolution does not contradict the slot. if it does, perhaps the slot
>> is wrong. prove your case.
>>
>_If_ a conflict between the second law and thermodynamics and evolution
>exist then it is evolution which would lose out!
why?
>>
>[snip]> >
>> >> > NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
>> >> [snip]> >
>> >
>> >Not necessary. It's a forensic inference. A-priori categorical
>exclusion
>> >of any non-naturalistic causation is unscientific and results in an
>> >unreliable
>> >methodology since it is then incapable of recognizing non-material
>> >causation (since it is excluded a-priori, of course).
>>
>> meaningless. tell us how to define and measure a non natural cause.
>> tell us where one may be observed.
>>
>Do you believe that science can answer all questions plumb every depth
>and reach every height?
>> >
do you realize why that question is a non sequitur? its the
creationists who want to let magic be an explanation for everything.
science has limits, but creationism has none. thus its creationists
who assert science can answer all questions.
Adam Marczyk
[snip]
> > > MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist here is
> > > your challenge (should you choose to accept it): Show how spontaneous
> > > chemical reactions meeting the more specific form of the 2LOT stated
> > > in the form of the requirements for spontaneous chemical reactions and
> > > the Gibbs Free Energy can get started ('emerge') and be capable of
> > > storing (say) the Free Energy in the DNA molecule using thermionically
> > > coupled reactions, etc (or whatever you like), in a realistic time
> > frame,
> > > in such a fashion that it does NOT constitute an irreducibly complex
> > > system.
> >
> > This is analogous of asking physicists to calculate the energy levels
> > of the uranium atom from scratch, else materialist-reductionist quantum
> > mechanics has big problems.
>
> No Hans, bad analogy!
Care to explain why?
> > So we do something simpler: we do the experiment. Every DNA synthesis
> > (in ribosomes or in PCR reactions) proves that it can be done.
>
> Nope. Berra's Blunder or Investigator interference. You need to re-read
> what I actually said.
>
>
> > > NOTE to Evolutionist-materialist-reductionist: special pleas about our
> > > current state of scientific ignorance in these matters, and or
> > expressions
> > > in your 'religious faith' that a materialist-reductionist answer will
> > > someday
> > > be forthcoming, and hand-waving need not apply.
> >
> > Not necessary. The experiment says it's OK.
> >
>
> Nope. E.g., Miller-Urey proves just the opposite of what
> is commonly claimed! (think about it)
I did. I don't see your point.
>
> > BTW, I still don't see how the 2Lot argues powerfully against our
> > current understanding of evolution.
> >
>
>
> It certainly argues against material-reductionism in the form of
> abiogenesis 'hopes' - many of which you yourself have expressed.
No, it doesn't. The 2LoT has precisely zip to say about abiogenesis.
> Hope, er, Faith in Naturalism; why Hans, I didn't realize you were
> so religious! ;-)
>
> My original challenge states why.
>
> Further, 2LoT definetly argues against the increase in information
Hold it right there. Since when does the 2LoT state anything about
information?
> content in the biocosm as Spetner has stated. It certainly cannot be
> understood as a natural law/principle that could facilitate it. Our
> only precedent is for designers to contrive systems which constrain
> material/energy movement so as to counter the natural influence of
> 2LoT to adversly affect such predesignated movements.
>
> The fact that once contrived/arranged, such systems then mitigate
> against the destructive/degenerative affects of 2LoT in no way
> supports the concept that such systems achieve their genesis
> naturally in concert with or in spite of the 2LoT.
>
> To think otherwise is the great non-sequitur of materialism.
>
>
> > > NOTE to creationists: Don't hold your breath. Also, take carefull
> > note
> > > of the kinds of responses. See how many will be frank about there
> > > being nothing even on the horizon that address this outstanding issue.
> > > Further, see how many would be willing to admit that this EVIDENCE
> > > clearly shows the merits of at least just allowing the consideration
> > > of an argument using design
> >
> > No problem. As soon as you present to us the methods that said designer
> > used.
>
>
> Not necessary. It's a forensic inference. A-priori categorical exclusion
> of any non-naturalistic causation is unscientific
No it's not, since science is by definition naturalistic.
> and results in an
> unreliable
> methodology since it is then incapable of recognizing non-material
> causation (since it is excluded a-priori, of course).
You never answered my question. How do you tell the difference between a
natural event we don't yet understand and a supernatural event that cannot,
even in principle, be understood? If you have no reliable way of
differentiating between the two, your ideas are worthless in a practical
sense.
>
> >Of course they have to be consistent with physics and chemistry,
> > thus the designer is bound by the 2LoT.
>
> Only for its subsequent operation - IF He desires it to run unattended
> according to natural law. Not so with the systems inception.
>
>
> > *Unlimited* designers (aka dei ex machina) have no place in science.
> > They explain too much ..... ;-)
>
> Just the same as pan-naturalistic *(insert plea to naturalism-of-the-gaps
> events here)*.
What do you think "naturalism of the gaps" is, if not "I don't know?"
Science makes this assumption precisely because if it concludes a
supernatural event has occurred based merely on the fact that we don't
understand something, then we know we'll never understand it.
[snip]
Stephen Poley
>> > John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote:
>> > >Crystals,
>> > >hurricanes, etc. do demonstrate that order and complexity are
>> > >natural, but how does one account for what is clearly a
>> > >transcendent level of complex order in biology?
<snip>
>If you compare everything we *do* know about humans and
>hurricanes, I think you must be persuaded that there is a degree
>of organization in the human that far exceeds that of the
>hurricanes.
I think I can go along with that second statement. But 10^22 far exceeds
10^8. Is it transcendent? No - add 1 often enough to 10^8, and you'll
get to 10^22.
You claimed that the difference biology/meterology was transcendent. And
not just that: *clearly* transcendent. A clear break - you can't get
from one to the other. So tell us - where is the break, and how do you
identify it as such?
Given the increase in complexity from simple inorganic compounds like
water and carbon dioxide, to simple organic compounds like formaldehyde,
to amino acids, to proteins, to RNA/DNA, to genes, to chromosomes, to
cells - where exactly is the break that cannot be bridged?
--
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
uk.rec.birdwatching FAQ: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/ukrb.htm
Mike Goodrich
"Stephen Poley" <sbp...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3a81231d...@news.xs4all.nl...
Try considering irreducible complexity. It would appear to as good a name
or concept about that diving line as we have at present.
Also considering answering up the my original challenge:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=722408435
regards,
-mg
Richard Wein
>John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote in message
>news:3A805FB0...@olywa.net...
>>
>>
>> "R. Tang" wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <kpXf6.615$EA5....@news1.atl>,>> > >news:3a7f6928....@news.ptdprolog.net...>> > >This is not an original concept with me. I once read a statement
>attributed
>> > >to
>> > >Author Eddington who warned that "if your theory is shown to be
against
>the
>> > >Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope: there is nothing
>> > >for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation". I think evolution
where
>> > >simple
>> > >organisms arose from lifeless matter through increasing the
complexity
>> > >of chemicals, increased their complexity through time is in strict
>violation
>> > >of
>> > >the second law of thermodynamics. There is nothing in nature which
>comes
>> > >even close to this increase in complexity. By pointing to crystals,
>water
>> > >swirls and tornadoes as examples of increasing complexity then
>extrapolating
>> > >this as evidence that complexity can randomly increase to a level
>comparable
>> > >to a living cell is (imo) grasping at straws.
>> >
>> > Why?
>> >
>> > Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
>> > Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
>> > "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit
a
>> > barrier stopping one form from becoming another. Please elucidate what
>> > complexity is and what this barrier is; you should be able to generate
>> > some possible research programs for this.
>> >
>> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
>> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as
>"unwarranted
>> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity is.
>>
>> The 2LoT as a barrier is definitely bogus. But, we must be
>> mindful that there is a striking difference between the kind of
>> complexity that is seen in any biological system and the highest
>> forms of complexity in ordinary transient phenomena. Crystals,
>> hurricanes, etc. do demonstrate that order and complexity are
>> natural, but how does one account for what is clearly a
>> transcendent level of complex order in biology?
That's exactly the question that the theory of evolution answers.
>> Is it necessary
>> that there be only one regime of that kind of complex order, as
>> seems to be the case with biology on the earth? What general
>> principles exist for order and complexity among simple systems
>> that give impetus to the emergence of life? Where do we see the
>> rudiments of replication and selection in non-biological complex
>> order?
That's exactly the point which invalidates your argument. Since (a)
non-biological entities do not self-replicate, (b) self-replication is a
vital part of the theory of evolution, and (c) the theory of evolution
explains the origin of complexity without the need for design, you cannot
argue for design through complexity by induction from non-biological
entities.
Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that biological organisms are
"transcendentally" more complex than any known designed objects? If so, then
your form of argument can also be used to argue that biological organisms
are not designed. Such an argument would actually be better than yours,
since it wouldn't suffer from the flaw I mentioned above.
>Personally, I think the reason we don't see anything else as complex as
life
>is because any system of equal complexity that possessed any degree of
>stability would _be_ life.
Probably. But even if it wasn't, creationists would probably ascribe it to
some
supernatural designer anyway.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
Please change "nospam" to "rwein" in my email address.
John Bode
"Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I think evolution where simple organisms arose from lifeless matter
> through increasing the complexity of chemicals, increased their
> complexity through time is in strict violation of
> the second law of thermodynamics.
Why? Where, specifically, is the constraint violated? Are you saying
complex chemical compounds cannot be generated from simpler compounds
without violating 2LoT?
--
Milner's Law: If you can think of it, somebody else already has
and is making money from it on the Internet.
Get the FAQ's at http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
ghos...@my-deja.com
Not really, since IC systems have been shown to be able to arise in a
stepwise fashion, there is not really a "diving line"
IC as reliable evidence of ID has been clearly disproven per Behe's
standard.
> Also considering answering up the my original challenge:
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=722408435
Already addressed. Perhaps you might not like the answer but then again,
perhaps the "challenge" is not that relevant ?
Adam Marczyk
IC is a sham, plain and simple. Ordinary evolutionary origins have been
demonstrated for several of Behe's purported IC systems, including blood
clotting and bacterial flagellae.
> Also considering answering up the my original challenge:
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=722408435
--
Mark VandeWettering
Yes, it does appear to be as good a name or concept about that dividing
line as we have at present. Unfortunately it is a word/concept which
has no scientific definition or meaning, so it isn't very useful, in
spite of appearing to be the best that creationists can dream up.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Ken Cox
> "Stephen Poley" <sbp...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > Given the increase in complexity from simple inorganic compounds like
> > water and carbon dioxide, to simple organic compounds like formaldehyde,
> > to amino acids, to proteins, to RNA/DNA, to genes, to chromosomes, to
> > cells - where exactly is the break that cannot be bridged?
> Try considering irreducible complexity. It would appear to as good a name
> or concept about that diving line as we have at present.
Which is another way of saying that there is no such dividing
line. Unless Behe's found an example of irreducible complexity
that (1) has held up under scrutiny and (2) he hasn't admitted
could have evolved from some other system?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
John Segerson
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
> On 6 Feb 2001 15:40:13 -0500, John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"R. Tang" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <kpXf6.615$EA5....@news1.atl>,
> >> Robert Dean <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:3a7f6928....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> >> >> On 5 Feb 2001 21:57:06 -0500, "Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >This is not an original concept with me. I once read a statement attributed
> >> >to
> >> >Author Eddington who warned that "if your theory is shown to be against the
> >> >Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope: there is nothing
> >> >for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation". I think evolution where
> >> >simple
> >> >organisms arose from lifeless matter through increasing the complexity
> >> >of chemicals, increased their complexity through time is in strict violation
> >> >of
> >> >the second law of thermodynamics. There is nothing in nature which comes
> >> >even close to this increase in complexity. By pointing to crystals, water
> >> >swirls and tornadoes as examples of increasing complexity then extrapolating
> >> >this as evidence that complexity can randomly increase to a level comparable
> >> >to a living cell is (imo) grasping at straws.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
> >> Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
> >> "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit a
> >> barrier stopping one form from becoming another. Please elucidate what
> >> complexity is and what this barrier is; you should be able to generate
> >> some possible research programs for this.
> >>
> >> Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
> >> anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as "unwarranted
> >> extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity is.
> >
> >The 2LoT as a barrier is definitely bogus. But, we must be
> >mindful that there is a striking difference between the kind of
> >complexity that is seen in any biological system and the highest
> >forms of complexity in ordinary transient phenomena. Crystals,
> >hurricanes, etc. do demonstrate that order and complexity are
> >natural, but how does one account for what is clearly a
> >transcendent level of complex order in biology?
>
> you got a 'transcendent' meter than can measure how much more
> 'transcendent' biological complexity is, and why it cant arise
> naturally??
I composed this in reply to Roger Tang yesterday. For some
reason, it didn't post.
J
************
Oops. Didn't mean to imply something outside the bounds of
nature, here. Bad choice of words, perhaps. I am only referring
to the sense that there is a big step from the highest level of
complex order in non-biological systems to the least complex
order in biology. Quantifiable? Not by any system that I know
of. But the sense is there nevertheless. For instance, what
examples are there of non-biological systems that are roughly
intermediate in complex order between a snowflake and a
bacterium?
J
**********
> Is it necessary
> >that there be only one regime of that kind of complex order, as
> >seems to be the case with biology on the earth? What general
> >principles exist for order and complexity among simple systems
> >that give impetus to the emergence of life? Where do we see the
> >rudiments of replication and selection in non-biological complex
> >order?
> >
>
> there are self organizing natural systems.
John Segerson
Adam Marczyk wrote:
>
> John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote in message
> news:3A805FB0...@olywa.net...
> >
> >
> > "R. Tang" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <kpXf6.615$EA5....@news1.atl>,
> > > Robert Dean <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > ><wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:3a7f6928....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> > > >> On 5 Feb 2001 21:57:06 -0500, "Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> > transcendent level of complex order in biology? Is it necessary
> > that there be only one regime of that kind of complex order, as
> > seems to be the case with biology on the earth? What general
> > principles exist for order and complexity among simple systems
> > that give impetus to the emergence of life? Where do we see the
> > rudiments of replication and selection in non-biological complex
> > order?
>
> Personally, I think the reason we don't see anything else as complex as life
> is because any system of equal complexity that possessed any degree of
> stability would _be_ life.
Agreed. And I'm satisfied that life is something that seeks
diversity, and is likely to continuously increase in complexity.
But I'm puzzling over what seems to me to be a discontinuity
between the degree of organization of non-biological systems and
biological ones. When creationists use the intricacies of living
systems as an argument for design, it is difficult to rebut by
pointing to examples of natural order and complexity. Matching
up system for system, any non-biological example runs out pretty
quickly, and life has layer upon layer. It seems to me that
replication must be the reason for the apparent difference. More
than just self-organization, replication would open up the
influence of variation and selection and begin a process of
speciation and diversity. Further, it seems this must have been
present at the threshold of divergence of living from non-living
systems. The question for me is, "Why isn't there a variety of
non-biological examples that show at least a facsimile of complex
ordered systems reminiscent of life?" Would any form of such
complexity always attract predation and assimilation by existing
life? Does the biology we know today function as a "sink" for
complex order.
J
John Bode
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
> creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical law
> specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And in
> time, 2LoT will take its toll.
>
Computers (and any other electronic or mechanical device) operate in
accordance with the 2nd law quite well, thank you very much. Energy
goes in, some of it does real work, most of it is radiated as heat to
its surroundings. Or haven't you noticed that most PCs double as
inefficient space heaters? The entropy of the total system (computer +
office) increases, and the 2nd law is satisfied.
No amount of "creative genius" can circumvent the 2nd law. If it could,
we'd already have perpetual motion machines and free energy out the
wazoo.
--
Milner's Law: If you can think of it, somebody else already has
and is making money from it on the Internet.
Get the FAQ's at http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
Robert Dean
R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:95ph2r$r1i$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> In article <kpXf6.615$EA5....@news1.atl>,> >news:3a7f6928....@news.ptdprolog.net...
attributed
> >to Author Eddington who warned that "if your theory is shown to be
against
> >the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope: there is
nothing
> >for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation". I think evolution where
simple
> >organisms arose from lifeless matter through increasing the complexity
> >of chemicals, increased their complexity through time is in strict
violation
> >of the second law of thermodynamics. There is nothing in nature which
comes
> >even close to this increase in complexity. By pointing to crystals, water
> >swirls and tornadoes as examples of increasing complexity then
extrapolating
> >this as evidence that complexity can randomly increase to a level
comparable
> >to a living cell is (imo) grasping at straws.
>
> Why?
>
_why_. That is, unless you call formation of snowflakes, crystals
hurricanes -phrase transisistions like water into ice via a refrigerator
which requires energy to be pumped in- to be the equivelent of a
transformation of inorganic matter into living cell (abiogenesis).
>
> Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
> Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
> "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit a
> barrier stopping one form from becoming another.
>
What is the energy requirement of transforming one form of
complexity into a higher form is the better question. In a phase
transistion an outside source of energy is required, but not any
form of energy, but *useful energy*. I can easily show that an engine
working between two different temperatures (T1 and T2) can have
higher efficiency than a reversable engine working between the
*same* two tempatures (T1). In a refrigerator, using the ambient
tempature as the higher tempature (T2), a Carnet cycle operating in
a reverse sense is used to extract heat (Q1) from a body cooled
to a tempature cooled to T1. (lower than the ambient temperature (T2).
thus: Q1 = L (T1/T2-T1)
where L is the amount of work absorbed.
So obviously, such transistions can occur, but the *barrier* has to be
overcome requiring useful energy. The point is the barrier is there
useful energy is not, UNTIL it is pumped in.
>
Please elucidate what
> complexity is and what this barrier is; you should be able to generate
> some possible research programs for this.
>
>
> Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
> anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as "unwarranted
> extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity is.
>
where the builder had removed temporary stairs between the two floors.
One can exert all the energy at one's disposal - running, jumping, cutting
summates, but this raise a person to the second floor. Expending
energy alone is insufficient. What in addition is needed is a stairwell. In
contrast to energy pumped into a refrigerator where the Carnot Cycle
is driven by useful energy; the same *useful* energy pumped into just
any appliance will not result in a phrase transition where the inside
temperature becomes cooler than the ambient temperature. In every
case irreversible processes are involved in refrigerating devices
requiring energy driven thermal engines.
I take this to be understood, but if necessary I can prove this.
>
In regards to crystalline substances, the *barrier* is seen when
comparing crystals to substances at absolute zero. The entropy of
crystals, like substance at absolute zero, can be expressed as
follows: the entropy of every system at absolute zero can always
be taken equal to zero.
I can prove this by appealing to the Nernst theorem as it is used
to determine the entropy constant, ( at absolute zero and crystals)
and this can demonstrate where the *barrier* is in effect, that is
where further phrase transformation is not possible.
The formula S(A) = a/S/o (dQ/T) where (o) is an arbitrarily chosen
initial state (first phrase), (T1)and (A) the other equilibrium
state(T1). I assume you are versed in the physics of substances at
Absolute zero, so you realize that these states can correspond to a
large number of dynamical states. This led (if I remember
correctly) to the Boltzmann relation:
S = l log pi, where pi is the probability of any given state. But in
reality it is the number of dynamic states that corresponds to a
given thermodynamic state. The dynamical states of a system forms
an array where (f) is number of degrees of freedom of the system.
Each state can be represented by a point in a 2f-dimensional
space, called the "phrase space of the system", rather than an
exact representation. The *phrase space* is divided into a number
of very small cells all having the same hyper-volume(r). It can be
shown that if (r) is changed pi is also altered.
According to the Boltzmann relation, the value of pi which
corresponds to S = 0 IS PI = 1. Therefore, Nernst's theorem states
that *to the thermodynamically state of a system at absolute zero
there corresponds only one dynamical state, namely the dynamical
state of the LOWEST energy compatible with the given crystalline
structure, or state of aggregation of the system*.
Bobby Dean
> --
> -Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
> - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
> - http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
> -Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
>
Tracy P. Hamilton
"Richard Wein" <nos...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:t82j74t...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> Adam Marczyk wrote in message
<95q5bp$u0s$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
> >John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote in message
> >news:3A805FB0...@olywa.net...
[snip]
Goodrich said:
> >> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
> >> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as
> >"unwarranted
> >> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity is.
> >>
> >> The 2LoT as a barrier is definitely bogus. But, we must be
> >> mindful that there is a striking difference between the kind of
> >> complexity that is seen in any biological system and the highest
> >> forms of complexity in ordinary transient phenomena. Crystals,
> >> hurricanes, etc. do demonstrate that order and complexity are
> >> natural, but how does one account for what is clearly a
> >> transcendent level of complex order in biology?
>
> That's exactly the question that the theory of evolution answers.
But not abiogenesis, which is what Goodrich's request was really
about.
> >> Is it necessary
> >> that there be only one regime of that kind of complex order, as
> >> seems to be the case with biology on the earth? What general
> >> principles exist for order and complexity among simple systems
> >> that give impetus to the emergence of life? Where do we see the
> >> rudiments of replication and selection in non-biological complex
> >> order?
>
> That's exactly the point which invalidates your argument. Since (a)
> non-biological entities do not self-replicate, (b) self-replication is a
> vital part of the theory of evolution, and (c) the theory of evolution
> explains the origin of complexity without the need for design, you cannot
> argue for design through complexity by induction from non-biological
> entities.
What is the simplest self-replicating system that can evolve to
current life? We do not know.
> Furthermore, wouldn't you agree that biological organisms are
> "transcendentally" more complex than any known designed objects? If so,
then
> your form of argument can also be used to argue that biological organisms
> are not designed.
Just as convincingly as arguing for design, yes. In other words, not at all
convincingly either way.
> Such an argument would actually be better than yours,
> since it wouldn't suffer from the flaw I mentioned above.
>
Tracy P. Hamilton
Adam Marczyk
news:nkhg6.925$RK4....@news3.atl...
That's all very interesting, but what makes you think abiogenesis causes a
decrease in entropy? It causes a decrease in the amount of usable energy
just like any other chemical reaction.
[snip]
Ken Cox
> It has NEVER been observed to occur apart from living systems is
> _why_. That is, unless you call formation of snowflakes, crystals
> hurricanes -phrase transisistions like water into ice via a refrigerator
> which requires energy to be pumped in- to be the equivelent of a
> transformation of inorganic matter into living cell (abiogenesis).
So your position is that it's never been observed to happen,
unless you count where it has been observed to happen?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
R. Tang
I'm sorry, but you're arguing from your premises. You're arguing
that these two things are distinct, but you're not describing the
differences well.
>> Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
>> Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
>> "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit a
>> barrier stopping one form from becoming another.
>>
>You ask me to describe for a *barrier*? This is the wrong question!
No, it's precisely the RIGHT question. You said there's a
difference between the two...now you better describe it.
>What is the energy requirement of transforming one form of
>complexity into a higher form is the better question.
Again, operationalize complexity.
In a phase
>transistion an outside source of energy is required, but not any
>form of energy, but *useful energy*. I can easily show that an engine
>working between two different temperatures (T1 and T2) can have
>higher efficiency than a reversable engine working between the
>*same* two tempatures (T1). In a refrigerator, using the ambient
>tempature as the higher tempature (T2), a Carnet cycle operating in
>a reverse sense is used to extract heat (Q1) from a body cooled
>to a tempature cooled to T1. (lower than the ambient temperature (T2).
>thus: Q1 = L (T1/T2-T1)
>where L is the amount of work absorbed.
>So obviously, such transistions can occur, but the *barrier* has to be
>overcome requiring useful energy. The point is the barrier is there
>useful energy is not, UNTIL it is pumped in.
>>
> Please elucidate what
>> complexity is and what this barrier is; you should be able to generate
>> some possible research programs for this.
>>
>see above!
I have. YOu haven't. Define complexity. You have not done
so; you've only assumed that one thing is "more" complex than another and
that you can't get from one to another.
This is an analogy; you haven't applied it to reality of complex
molecules. ANd you haven't yet defined complexity and shown how it differs
from a crystal to living things.
Do that, and we can talk more. As it is, this is an argument from
incredulity.
leonardo dasso
>
> "A-priori categorical exclusion
> of any non-naturalistic causation is unscientific and results in an
> unreliable
> methodology since it is then incapable of recognizing non-material
> causation (since it is excluded a-priori, of course)."
-mg
I have to admit that after repeating this hilarious notion over and over and
over for months, in dozens of threads, Mike has got this line extremely
honed up. It sounds powerful, and impressive - you can hear Moses shouting
it to the unfaithful. Just one thing: the "since it is then incapable " has
to be replaced by "which is then incapable", and then we could laminate it,
frame it and hang it on our walls as the epitome of the absurd.
regards
leo
R. Tang
John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote:
>************
>Oops. Didn't mean to imply something outside the bounds of
>nature, here. Bad choice of words, perhaps. I am only referring
>to the sense that there is a big step from the highest level of
>complex order in non-biological systems to the least complex
>order in biology. Quantifiable? Not by any system that I know
>of. But the sense is there nevertheless. For instance, what
>examples are there of non-biological systems that are roughly
>intermediate in complex order between a snowflake and a
>bacterium?
Well, I don't know until we can specify (on some measurement
scale) what complexity is. If we can't operationalize it, on some level,
it's really hard to say anything meaningful about it.
Tracy P. Hamilton
You have not thought about what properties lead to the observed
increses in "complexity". What about snowflakes and order?
It is not "information" or any other such nonsense. It is the
electronic density distribution which is not "put into" a
molecule in any way whatsoever.
A refrigerator has no "information in it". It is merely a
device so that energy flows will go in predictable ways
(by always making sure it goes from high potential to low).
So it goes with molecular systems, such as water molecules
going to ice. There is energy flow if the surrounding temperature
is such (below freezing) such that heat will flow from the water.
The way that energy flows is determined in both the refrigerator and
in water by the stucture. The *difference* is that the structure
of the refrigerator has no natural reason, whereas that for
a molecule does.
So the question about abiogenesis (life is pretty much
understood how it can evolve on a chemical basis) is
1) what molecules would be present in an abiogenetic
earth? Answer: unknown
2) what proportions will they be in? Answer: Unknown, and
can't be known until 1) is known
3) What mixtures of those chemicals are such that they form
stable, self-replicating systems? Answer:Unknown
We do know some answers.
1) For example, some of the molecules
that would be present. It turns out that they are amino acids,
nucleic acids and sugars.
2) Some there is apparently little worry about making enough,
others are more problematic
3) Self-templating is itself not that difficult to envision - it
just needs matching of complementary hydrogen bonding
species, or some other means.
> > Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
> > Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
> > "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit a
> > barrier stopping one form from becoming another.
> >
> You ask me to describe for a *barrier*? This is the wrong question!
> What is the energy requirement of transforming one form of
> complexity into a higher form is the better question. In a phase
> transistion an outside source of energy is required, but not any
WRONG! Be more careful.
> form of energy, but *useful energy*. I can easily show that an engine
> working between two different temperatures (T1 and T2) can have
> higher efficiency than a reversable engine working between the
> *same* two tempatures (T1).
And, this has what to do with forming molecules?
Well, let me clue you in. Molecules are governed by the energy
minimum principle. If the products are lower in energy than
the reactants, they will be made. Period. Nada, zip about
complexity in there.
> In a refrigerator, using the ambient
> tempature as the higher tempature (T2), a Carnet cycle operating in
> a reverse sense is used to extract heat (Q1) from a body cooled
> to a tempature cooled to T1. (lower than the ambient temperature (T2).
> thus: Q1 = L (T1/T2-T1)
> where L is the amount of work absorbed.
> So obviously, such transistions can occur, but the *barrier* has to be
> overcome requiring useful energy. The point is the barrier is there
> useful energy is not, UNTIL it is pumped in.
There is no "barrier". There is only the changing of conditions.
Heat will not go from cold to hot, so what to do?
Compress something you want to cool, make it hotter
than its surroundings, let the heat flow then, then expand
to cool it. It will be cooler than before, so the net result
is flow from cold to hot.
Only if one takes a myopic view of what is going on.
2LOT says that more compensating entropy must be produced
in the compression and expansion than was reduced. Nothing
about how likely it will be.
You are getting your views about how likely it would be for
a molecular process from experience with a mechanical device,
and mixing that up with the 2LOT to boot.
How reliable do you think that would be?
> Please elucidate what
> > complexity is and what this barrier is; you should be able to generate
> > some possible research programs for this.
> >
> see above!
> >
> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as
"unwarranted
> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity is.
> >
> An analogue to the barrier would be, a two story house under construction
> where the builder had removed temporary stairs between the two floors.
> One can exert all the energy at one's disposal - running, jumping, cutting
> summates, but this raise a person to the second floor. Expending
> energy alone is insufficient. What in addition is needed is a stairwell.
In
> contrast to energy pumped into a refrigerator where the Carnot Cycle
> is driven by useful energy; the same *useful* energy pumped into just
> any appliance will not result in a phrase transition where the inside
> temperature becomes cooler than the ambient temperature. In every
> case irreversible processes are involved in refrigerating devices
> requiring energy driven thermal engines.
> I take this to be understood, but if necessary I can prove this.
In essence, you reverse a nonspontaneous process by coupling it with
an even stronger allowed process. In chemistry this is done through
the properties of the molecules, not from things "put into" them.
Not via "useful" energy. Useful is in the eye of the beholder.
In chemical reactions, you put energy in (heat for example) and
in some cases you get molecules made. Pretty good for energy
that is not useful for a vacuum cleaner. What does it mean that setting
a fire under a vacuum cleaner doesn't do anything but destroy it?
Nothing. Zip, nada.
Other chemical reactions are driven by light. Light is a way of getting
a high energy state, with transfers between many molecules in many
reactions. It is pointless to speak of useful energy , or useless.
What is useful is to speak of what happens and under what conditions.
In abiogenesis, the question is how likely nucleic acids are
formed (depends on conditions) and sugars (depends on
conditions) and to link together (depends on conditions)
and to polymerize (you know what goes here).
Many things can happen. It is actually quite complex. Chemists
generally search valiantly (sometimes with little success)
to avoid complex systems (we call them mixtures)
as they are too messy to understand every old one that would appear.
Kind of like life is challenging to understand for the same reason.
What makes life special is not the complexity, but self replication,
and its ability to evolve.
*WE* understand that.
In evolution of current systems, there is no mystery. We know
the relevant chemistry and conditions, in the main. We know how self
replication works. We realize that it can't be how it worked originally.
Unfortunately, we have the end result of a long zillion step process.
> In regards to crystalline substances, the *barrier* is seen when
> comparing crystals to substances at absolute zero. The entropy of
> crystals, like substance at absolute zero, can be expressed as
> follows: the entropy of every system at absolute zero can always
> be taken equal to zero.
> I can prove this by appealing to the Nernst theorem as it is used
> to determine the entropy constant, ( at absolute zero and crystals)
> and this can demonstrate where the *barrier* is in effect, that is
> where further phrase transformation is not possible.
This has nothing to do with a barrier.
> The formula S(A) = a/S/o (dQ/T) where (o) is an arbitrarily chosen
> initial state (first phrase), (T1)and (A) the other equilibrium
> state(T1). I assume you are versed in the physics of substances at
> Absolute zero, so you realize that these states can correspond to a
> large number of dynamical states. This led (if I remember
> correctly) to the Boltzmann relation:
> S = l log pi, where pi is the probability of any given state. But in
> reality it is the number of dynamic states that corresponds to a
> given thermodynamic state. The dynamical states of a system forms
> an array where (f) is number of degrees of freedom of the system.
> Each state can be represented by a point in a 2f-dimensional
> space, called the "phrase space of the system", rather than an
> exact representation. The *phrase space* is divided into a number
> of very small cells all having the same hyper-volume(r). It can be
> shown that if (r) is changed pi is also altered.
> According to the Boltzmann relation, the value of pi which
> corresponds to S = 0 IS PI = 1. Therefore, Nernst's theorem states
> that *to the thermodynamically state of a system at absolute zero
> there corresponds only one dynamical state, namely the dynamical
> state of the LOWEST energy compatible with the given crystalline
> structure, or state of aggregation of the system*.
Why would PI=1? Maybe the fact that there is 1 lowest energy state,
that being from the molecules aligning together via minimum
energy at finite temperature. It is that energy minimum principle again.
There is an interesting phenomenon called polymorphism that you may want to
consider. The crystal structure that a substance prefers depends on
its conditions. Yet at absolute zero both would have the same entropy = 0.
Doens't mean much for determining which one you get at finite T, does it?
Sometimes one gets wholesale reversions of one crystal to another.
Reactions that are spontaneous at one temperature are non spontaneous
at another temperature. Or concentrations. Polymerization of amino
acids to polypeptides is nonspontaneous in dilute water solutions.
OK. Some people argue that therefor they could never form. Quite
wrong. There are other conditions to get polymerization, including
different solvent, or concentration, or temperature. This is even done
experimentally.
Tracy P. Hamilton
wf...@ptd.net
>
>
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> you got a 'transcendent' meter than can measure how much more
>> 'transcendent' biological complexity is, and why it cant arise
>> naturally??
>
>I composed this in reply to Roger Tang yesterday. For some
>reason, it didn't post.
>J
>************
>Oops. Didn't mean to imply something outside the bounds of
>nature, here. Bad choice of words, perhaps. I am only referring
>to the sense that there is a big step from the highest level of
>complex order in non-biological systems to the least complex
>order in biology. Quantifiable? Not by any system that I know
>of. But the sense is there nevertheless. For instance, what
>examples are there of non-biological systems that are roughly
>intermediate in complex order between a snowflake and a
>bacterium?
and at one time the complexity in the smallest snowflake was not
understood. this does not argue for an intelligent designer at all.
John Segerson
If you thought I was trying to get to an intelligent designer,
you've misunderstood me. Check out some of my other posts on
that subject.
J
Mike Goodrich
"Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote in message
news:95s8g4$mcg$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
>
> "Richard Wein" <nos...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:t82j74t...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> > Adam Marczyk wrote in message
> <95q5bp$u0s$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
> > >John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote in message
> > >news:3A805FB0...@olywa.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> Goodrich said:
> > >> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
> > >> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as
> > >"unwarranted
> > >> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity
is.
> > >>
> > >> The 2LoT as a barrier is definitely bogus. But, we must be
> > >> mindful that there is a striking difference between the kind of
> > >> complexity that is seen in any biological system and the highest
> > >> forms of complexity in ordinary transient phenomena. Crystals,
> > >> hurricanes, etc. do demonstrate that order and complexity are
> > >> natural, but how does one account for what is clearly a
> > >> transcendent level of complex order in biology?
> >
> > That's exactly the question that the theory of evolution answers.
>
For the record: This is a mistake as I said none of the above.
-mg
Mike Goodrich
"John Bode" <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:95s6hv$u26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <5NTf6.241666$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
> > creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical law
> > specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And in
> > time, 2LoT will take its toll.
> >
>
> Computers (and any other electronic or mechanical device) operate in
> accordance with the 2nd law quite well, thank you very much. Energy
> goes in, some of it does real work, most of it is radiated as heat to
> its surroundings. Or haven't you noticed that most PCs double as
> inefficient space heaters? The entropy of the total system (computer +
> office) increases, and the 2nd law is satisfied.
>
> No amount of "creative genius" can circumvent the 2nd law. If it could,
> we'd already have perpetual motion machines and free energy out the
> wazoo.
>
> --
>
Nope. Try again. You've taken my statement out of context and apparently
did not understand the actual point I was making.
-mg
Mike Goodrich
"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3A818E6C...@research.bell-labs.com...
Only to a closed-minded religious fundamentalist!
cheers,
-mg
Mike Goodrich
> In article <kpXf6.615$EA5....@news1.atl>,
> "Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I think evolution where simple organisms arose from lifeless matter
> > through increasing the complexity of chemicals, increased their
> > complexity through time is in strict violation of
> > the second law of thermodynamics.
>
> Why? Where, specifically, is the constraint violated? Are you saying
> complex chemical compounds cannot be generated from simpler compounds
> without violating 2LoT?
>
Try
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=713786958
-mg
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
which, of course, says precisely nothing.
Mark VandeWettering
>Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
>creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical law
>specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And in time,
>2LoT will take its toll.
Piffle.
One cannot "overcome the deleterious effects of the 2LoT", creative
genius or not. Do you live in the cartoon world where Elmer Fudd
circumvents the law of gravity by the "principle of averted attention"?
>-mg
Stephen Poley
>> Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
>> Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
>> "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit a
>> barrier stopping one form from becoming another.
>>
>You ask me to describe for a *barrier*? This is the wrong question!
If someone is claiming that 2LOT prohibits either abiogenesis or
evolution, it's a perfectly reasonable question.
< snip answer to question that wasn't asked >
>An analogue to the barrier would be, a two story house under construction
>where the builder had removed temporary stairs between the two floors.
Yes, but the fossil record is not rich in two-storey houses. Cut the
analogies: tell us which step from inorganic to living is
thermodynamically impossible. If you can't, you don't appear to have a
point.
< snip of thermodynamics that looks about right but has no visible
relevance to the point under discussion. >
--
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
uk.rec.birdwatching FAQ: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/ukrb.htm
Stephen Poley
wrote:
>> You claimed that the difference biology/meterology was transcendent. And
>> not just that: *clearly* transcendent. A clear break - you can't get
>> from one to the other. So tell us - where is the break, and how do you
>> identify it as such?
>>
>> Given the increase in complexity from simple inorganic compounds like
>> water and carbon dioxide, to simple organic compounds like formaldehyde,
>> to amino acids, to proteins, to RNA/DNA, to genes, to chromosomes, to
>> cells - where exactly is the break that cannot be bridged?
>Try considering irreducible complexity. It would appear to as good a name
>or concept about that diving line as we have at present.
Maybe, but I'm not looking for a name or a concept - I'm looking for a
location.
If someone claims it's impossible to drive from Cape Town to Harare
because there is an unbridgeable chasm in the way, it's a perfectly fair
question to ask where this chasm is. And if someone claims it is
impossible to get from inorganic substances to living cells it is an
equally fair question to ask where the chasm is.
To make it absolutely clear: if someone claims there is as yet no
demonstrated path from inorganic material to living cells, that is fair
comment. If someone claims that no such path is possible, then they have
to come up with solid evidence if they want any thinking person to take
them seriously.
Eros
>
> "Eros" <Er...@Mt.Olympus> wrote in message
> news:QXSf6.2627$sS4....@ozemail.com.au...
> >
> > "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:xKIf6.241023$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > content in the biocosm as Spetner has stated. It certainly cannot be
> > > understood as a natural law/principle that could facilitate it. Our
> > > only precedent is for designers to contrive systems which constrain
> > > material/energy movement so as to counter the natural influence of
> > > 2LoT to adversly affect such predesignated movements.
> >
> > Explain "information content" mathematically in terms of the 2nd Law of
> > Thermodynamics.
> >
> > EROS.
> >
>
> You missed the whole point EROS. The information content of
> living matter is not explainable in *terms* of 2LoT.
No, I didn't miss the point at all. You made the unsubstantiated claim that
the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "argues against the increase in information
content in the biocosm". If that were true, then since the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics is based on solid mathematic principles you should be easily
able to explain mathematically why it "argues" against an "increase in
information content ."
In fact, there is no mention of "information content" at all, anywhere in
Thermodynamic theory, is there! This is all just a thinly disguised attempt
to introduce religious beliefs into Thermodynamics, by way of the
Creationist, flavour-of-the-month theory, "intelligent design". Get real,
Isaac Asimov laid the old chestnut of SLOT to rest years ago!
> Simple ordering of systems has been observed in systems held
> away from equilibrium by a sustained energy flux. But this
> information is low grade and amounts to simple ordering such
> as is found in crystals or certain fluid flows - nothing even
> close to what is extant in living systems.
How do you then explain the spontaneous reaction of inorganic gases such as
hydrogen, CO2 and nitrogen to form amino acids under nothing else but the
simple application of energy? And further, how do you explain that these
same amino acids spontaneously condense when partially dried (more energy)
into long-chain proteins which form spherical cell-like structures that have
been observed to grow in size and even reproduce themselves, after a
fashion, by a simple budding process? Hardly simple ordering, more like the
formation of highly complex precursors of life to me. You appear to be
behind the times if you haven't heard of this research. It's years old!
> The information content of living matter exists *in spite of* 2Lot.
No, the "information content" of living matter, as you quaintly call it, is
fully in accordance with all aspects of Thermodynamics... as, of course, is
everything else in nature!
> Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
> creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical law
> specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And in time,
> 2LoT will take its toll.
Ahhh, now we're getting to the bottom of all this pseudo-thermodynamic
mumbo-jumbo, aren't we! It's all been a lead up to the revelation that
Godmustadunit! Pardon my mirth, but don't tell me... God invented SLOT to
punnish Man for his sins, right? ROFL!
> The 2LoT scenario described here
>
> http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=722408435
>
>
> shows us that there is no spontaneous chemical scenario capable
> of explaining the genesis of living matter which manages the requisite
> sustained energy flux to maintain itself away from equilibrium.
Your supposed "proof" shows nothing of the sort. It consists of exactly the
same unsubstantiated religiously-based assertions as you have presented
here.
> Only a material-reductionist employing the very unscientific
> methodology of a-priori categorical exclusion of any and all
> non-material-reductionist causations would have framed the
> statement the way you did.
Only a word-oriented, Bible-bashing, card-carrying, explain-it-away
Creationist could have framed that statement the way you did. Come on Mike,
grow up! There is no world-wide conspiracy to suppress the real mysteries of
Thermodynamics going on here. Just like most scientists, SLOT just doesn't
care a hoot for your religion.
> Very unscientific.
And YOUR qualifications to establish that would be?
> Here's to open-minded, properly skeptical science,
Finally I have to agree with you!
EROS.
Eros
Actually I thought he hit the nail right on the head! Especially the part
about, "No amount of "creative genius" can circumvent the 2nd law". I would
have used the term "creative science genius" but that's me, cynical to a
fault when it comes to Creative "science"!
EROS.
Mike Goodrich
<ghos...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:95rqn6$hu4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <PFbg6.242993$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen Poley" <sbp...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3a81231d...@news.xs4all.nl...
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote:
> > > >> > >Crystals,
> > > >> > >hurricanes, etc. do demonstrate that order and complexity are
> > > >> > >natural, but how does one account for what is clearly a
> > > >> > >transcendent level of complex order in biology?
> > >
> > >
> > > >If you compare everything we *do* know about humans and
> > > >hurricanes, I think you must be persuaded that there is a degree
> > > >of organization in the human that far exceeds that of the
> > > >hurricanes.
> > >
> > > I think I can go along with that second statement. But 10^22 far
> exceeds
> > > 10^8. Is it transcendent? No - add 1 often enough to 10^8, and
> you'll
> > > get to 10^22.
> > >
> And
> > > not just that: *clearly* transcendent. A clear break - you can't get
> > > from one to the other. So tell us - where is the break, and how do
> you
> > > identify it as such?
> > >
> > > Given the increase in complexity from simple inorganic compounds
> like
> > > water and carbon dioxide, to simple organic compounds like
> formaldehyde,
> > > to amino acids, to proteins, to RNA/DNA, to genes, to chromosomes,
> to
> > > cells - where exactly is the break that cannot be bridged?
> > >
> >
> > Try considering irreducible complexity. It would appear to as good a
> name
> > or concept about that diving line as we have at present.
>
> stepwise fashion, there is not really a "diving line"
> IC as reliable evidence of ID has been clearly disproven per Behe's
> standard.
>
Nope. Never been "shown", only merely conjectured.
You are going way beyond what is warranted. That these
conjectures are all the materialist faithful need for proof
shows that they are behaving like religious fundamentalist.
-mg
Richard Wein
>
>"Richard Wein" <nos...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>news:t82j74t...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
>> Adam Marczyk wrote in message
><95q5bp$u0s$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>> >John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3A805FB0...@olywa.net...
>> >> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
>> >> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as
>> >"unwarranted
>> >> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity is.
>> >>
>> >> The 2LoT as a barrier is definitely bogus. But, we must be
>> >> mindful that there is a striking difference between the kind of
>> >> complexity that is seen in any biological system and the highest
>> >> forms of complexity in ordinary transient phenomena. Crystals,
>> >> hurricanes, etc. do demonstrate that order and complexity are
>> >> natural, but how does one account for what is clearly a
>> >> transcendent level of complex order in biology?
>>
>> That's exactly the question that the theory of evolution answers.
>
>But not abiogenesis, which is what Goodrich's request was really
>about.
Well, it depends whether, by abiogenesis, you mean the origin of the first
self-replicating structure (macromolecule, crystal or whatever), or the
origin of the first living organism. I missed the start of this thread, so I
don't know which Mike meant. I was responding to John's question above.
If, by biological systems, John meant living organisms, such as cells, then
my answer stands. The first self-replicating structure would almost
certainly not be considered a living organism, and evolution from relatively
simple self-replicating structures to cells can be explained by random
variation and natural selection.
If John's "biological systems" included the first self-replicating
structure, then I would question his implication that such a structure
required a "transcendent" level of complexity. Of course, the question of
what form such a structure may have taken is an open one, but it has nothing
to do with the SLoT.
I think the overall problem may be that John is contrasting "biological
systems" with "ordinary transient phenomena". He doesn't seem to be allowing
for the existence of non-biological self-replicating pheneomena, which are
the key to abiogenesis.
[...]
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
Please change "nospam" to "rwein" in my email address.
Adam Marczyk
Same thing.
> You are going way beyond what is warranted. That these
> conjectures are all the materialist faithful need for proof
> shows that they are behaving like religious fundamentalist.
Perhaps you're not understanding the concept. Behe says these structures
could not have arisen through evolution[1]. All that's required to prove him
wrong is to show one way that they could have.
[1] Actually, he doesn't say this, he merely says the chance of an IC system
evolving is small, which makes one wonder what the whole point of his book
was in the first place.
John Bode
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "John Bode" <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:95s6hv$u26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <5NTf6.241666$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> > "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
> > > creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical
> > > law specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And
> > > in time, 2LoT will take its toll.
> > >
> >
> > Computers (and any other electronic or mechanical device) operate in
> > accordance with the 2nd law quite well, thank you very much. Energy
> > goes in, some of it does real work, most of it is radiated as heat
> > to its surroundings. Or haven't you noticed that most PCs double as
> > inefficient space heaters? The entropy of the total system
> > (computer + office) increases, and the 2nd law is satisfied.
> >
> > No amount of "creative genius" can circumvent the 2nd law. If it
> > could, we'd already have perpetual motion machines and free energy
> > out the wazoo.
> >
> > --
> >
>
> Nope. Try again. You've taken my statement out of context and
> apparently did not understand the actual point I was making.
>
> -mg
>
I took it out of context because it's a breathtakingly stupid comment in
*any* context. *Nothing* exists "in spite of" the 2nd law. Nobody
"overcame the deleterious effects" of the 2nd law to make computers or
anything else. Everything from the mental effort of the design to the
fabrication of the chips to the assembling of the components to the
operation of the machine itself is subject to the limitations of the 2nd
law -- to wit, not all of the energy put into the process can be
converted to do work. We may have caused a local decrease in the
entropy of the raw materials, but only at the cost of causing a
*greater* increase in the entropy of the surrounding universe.
Robert Dean
> On 7 Feb 2001 14:27:23 -0500, "Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
> >> Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
> >> "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit
a
> >> barrier stopping one form from becoming another.
> >>
> >You ask me to describe for a *barrier*? This is the wrong question!
>
> If someone is claiming that 2LOT prohibits either abiogenesis or
> evolution, it's a perfectly reasonable question.
>
time towards complete equilibrium. Abiogenesis, assumes that
under certain circumstances the opposite can _spontaneously_ occur,
i.e. entropy can spontaneously decrease over time at the expense of
the surroundings. If this were true the slot would be negated and
rendered moot. The 2nd law should thusly be expressed: In a
closed system entropy can both increase and decrease towards
equalibrium and simultaneous move far away from equilibrium.
>>
> < snip answer to question that wasn't asked >
>
You are not reading what I wrote, instead you are making assumptions
and challenging the assumptions.
>
> >An analogue to the barrier would be, a two story house under construction
> >where the builder had removed temporary stairs between the two floors.
>
> Yes, but the fossil record is not rich in two-storey houses. Cut the
> analogies: tell us which step from inorganic to living is
> thermodynamically impossible. If you can't, you don't appear to have a
> point.
>
How can inorganic matter go from chaos to highly organized state of a
living cell. You assume that it can without saying how, and then ask me
to explain why it can't.
Which of these two questions is most approperate?
If you were to see me on the 2nd floor of a building where no stairs,
ladder or elevator was present:
1) what me what is the barrier that prevents me from rising to
the 2nd floor or
2) ask me how did I get to the 2nd floor when there is no stairs,
ladder or elevator to use?
>
> < snip of thermodynamics that looks about right but has no visible
> relevance to the point under discussion. >
>
You are simply begging off.
Robert Dean
John Bode <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:95s6hv$u26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <5NTf6.241666$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
> > creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical law
> > specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And in
> > time, 2LoT will take its toll.
> >
>
> Computers (and any other electronic or mechanical device) operate in
> accordance with the 2nd law quite well, thank you very much.
>
did.
>
Energy
> goes in, some of it does real work, most of it is radiated as heat to
> its surroundings. Or haven't you noticed that most PCs double as
> inefficient space heaters? The entropy of the total system (computer +
> office) increases, and the 2nd law is satisfied.
>
Certainly not I. If, however, an advanced mainframe computer
appeared spontaneously where my Micron sits over time that
would be a violation of lot! Same with the first living cell.
>
> No amount of "creative genius" can circumvent the 2nd law. If it could,
> we'd already have perpetual motion machines and free energy out the
> wazoo.
>
homeplace in California which I rent with _free_ utilities. My
last power bill went from $140./mo. virtually unchanged for
years to $755.
John Segerson
Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> "Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote in message
> news:95s8g4$mcg$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
> >
> > "Richard Wein" <nos...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:t82j74t...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> > > Adam Marczyk wrote in message
> > <95q5bp$u0s$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
> > > >John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:3A805FB0...@olywa.net...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Goodrich said:
> > > >> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
> > > >> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as
> > > >"unwarranted
> > > >> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity
> is.
> > > >>
This paragraph is mine
Ken Cox
> "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > Which is another way of saying that there is no such dividing
> > line. Unless Behe's found an example of irreducible complexity
> > that (1) has held up under scrutiny and (2) he hasn't admitted
> > could have evolved from some other system?
Then you should have no problem demonstrating that you are not
a close-minded religious fundamentalist, by giving such an
example of irreducible complexity.
(Mind you, I am no more expecting a substantive response to
*this* request than I am to the one pending in the "Handyman"
thread, where I asked Mike to demonstrate that he can, as he
puts it, "think out of the box" and give an example of something
that is neither natural nor supernatural.)
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> "John Bode" <john...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
> > > Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
> > > creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical law
> > > specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And in
> > > time, 2LoT will take its toll.
> > Computers (and any other electronic or mechanical device) operate in
> > accordance with the 2nd law quite well, thank you very much.
> Nope. Try again. You've taken my statement out of context and apparently
> did not understand the actual point I was making.
That is probably because the actual point you were making relies
on a bizarre interpretation of the 2nd law that bears no relation
to the actual second law.
*Everything* happens in accord with the 2nd law. That's why we
call it a law, instead of a guideline or good advice. Every
chemical reaction in your body, every step of the process whereby
an acorn grows into an oak, every movement of energy within a
computer, every activity -- chemical, mechanical, human -- involved
in designing and manufacturing that computer, *all* of them obey
the 2nd law at all times.
Human's don't circumvent it, overcome it, or get around it, any more
than when we arrange copper in a certain way we get around the laws
governing electromagnetism.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> The 2nd law states that in a closed system entropy increases over
> time towards complete equilibrium. Abiogenesis, assumes that
> under certain circumstances the opposite can _spontaneously_ occur,
> i.e. entropy can spontaneously decrease over time at the expense of
> the surroundings.
Somewhere between your two sentences the words "in a closed
system" disappeared.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Gavin Tabor
>
> R. Tang <gwan...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:95ph2r$r1i$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> > >news:3a7f6928....@news.ptdprolog.net...
> > >> On 5 Feb 2001 21:57:06 -0500, "Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >This is not an original concept with me. I once read a statement
> attributed
> > >to Author Eddington who warned that "if your theory is shown to be
> against
> > >the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope: there is
> nothing
> simple
> > >organisms arose from lifeless matter through increasing the complexity
> > >of chemicals, increased their complexity through time is in strict
> violation
> comes
> > >even close to this increase in complexity. By pointing to crystals, water
> > >swirls and tornadoes as examples of increasing complexity then
> extrapolating
> > >this as evidence that complexity can randomly increase to a level
> comparable
> > >to a living cell is (imo) grasping at straws.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> It has NEVER been observed to occur apart from living systems is
> _why_. That is, unless you call formation of snowflakes, crystals
> hurricanes -phrase transisistions like water into ice via a refrigerator
> which requires energy to be pumped in- to be the equivelent of a
> transformation of inorganic matter into living cell (abiogenesis).
As far as the 2nd law is concerned, there is no difference between
the two. Both require a local lowering of entropy, powered by energy
from the sun.
> >
> > Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
> > Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
> > "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b) posit a
> > barrier stopping one form from becoming another.
> >
> You ask me to describe for a *barrier*? This is the wrong question!
> What is the energy requirement of transforming one form of
> complexity into a higher form is the better question. In a phase
> transistion an outside source of energy is required, but not any
> form of energy, but *useful energy*. I can easily show that an engine
> working between two different temperatures (T1 and T2) can have
> higher efficiency than a reversable engine working between the
> *same* two tempatures (T1). In a refrigerator, using the ambient
> tempature as the higher tempature (T2), a Carnet cycle operating in
> a reverse sense is used to extract heat (Q1) from a body cooled
> to a tempature cooled to T1. (lower than the ambient temperature (T2).
> thus: Q1 = L (T1/T2-T1)
> where L is the amount of work absorbed.
> So obviously, such transistions can occur, but the *barrier* has to be
> overcome requiring useful energy. The point is the barrier is there
> useful energy is not, UNTIL it is pumped in.
Your last sentence does not parse correctly. Be that as it may, there is
indeed useful energy, coming from the Sun. The biosphere as a whole is a
heat engine, with the Sun as the hot reservoir and the microwave
background
as the cold reservoir, and it uses the difference between these two
reservoirs to do useful work, including building molecules and any
entropy requirements of evolution (which are minute anyway).
Gavin
> >
> Please elucidate what
> > complexity is and what this barrier is; you should be able to generate
> > some possible research programs for this.
> >
> see above!
> >
> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's an
> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as "unwarranted
> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity is.
> >
> An analogue to the barrier would be, a two story house under construction
> where the builder had removed temporary stairs between the two floors.
> One can exert all the energy at one's disposal - running, jumping, cutting
> summates, but this raise a person to the second floor. Expending
> energy alone is insufficient. What in addition is needed is a stairwell. In
> contrast to energy pumped into a refrigerator where the Carnot Cycle
> is driven by useful energy; the same *useful* energy pumped into just
> any appliance will not result in a phrase transition where the inside
> temperature becomes cooler than the ambient temperature. In every
> case irreversible processes are involved in refrigerating devices
> requiring energy driven thermal engines.
> I take this to be understood, but if necessary I can prove this.
> >
> In regards to crystalline substances, the *barrier* is seen when
> comparing crystals to substances at absolute zero. The entropy of
> crystals, like substance at absolute zero, can be expressed as
> follows: the entropy of every system at absolute zero can always
> be taken equal to zero.
> I can prove this by appealing to the Nernst theorem as it is used
> to determine the entropy constant, ( at absolute zero and crystals)
> and this can demonstrate where the *barrier* is in effect, that is
> where further phrase transformation is not possible.
> The formula S(A) = a/S/o (dQ/T) where (o) is an arbitrarily chosen
> initial state (first phrase), (T1)and (A) the other equilibrium
> state(T1). I assume you are versed in the physics of substances at
> Absolute zero, so you realize that these states can correspond to a
> large number of dynamical states. This led (if I remember
> correctly) to the Boltzmann relation:
> S = l log pi, where pi is the probability of any given state. But in
> reality it is the number of dynamic states that corresponds to a
> given thermodynamic state. The dynamical states of a system forms
> an array where (f) is number of degrees of freedom of the system.
> Each state can be represented by a point in a 2f-dimensional
> space, called the "phrase space of the system", rather than an
> exact representation. The *phrase space* is divided into a number
> of very small cells all having the same hyper-volume(r). It can be
> shown that if (r) is changed pi is also altered.
> According to the Boltzmann relation, the value of pi which
> corresponds to S = 0 IS PI = 1. Therefore, Nernst's theorem states
> that *to the thermodynamically state of a system at absolute zero
> there corresponds only one dynamical state, namely the dynamical
> state of the LOWEST energy compatible with the given crystalline
> structure, or state of aggregation of the system*.
>
> Bobby Dean
>
> > --
> > -Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
> > - Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
> > - http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
> > -Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
> >
--
Dr. Gavin Tabor
School of Engineering and Computer Science
Department of Engineering
University of Exeter
Mike Goodrich
Tracy P. Hamilton
>
> John Bode <john...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:95s6hv$u26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <5NTf6.241666$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
> > "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Just as computers exist *in spite of* 2Lot. They exist because
> > > creative genius arranged matter/energy in concert with physical law
> > > specifically to overcome the deleterious effects of 2LoT. And in
> > > time, 2LoT will take its toll.
> > >
> >
> > Computers (and any other electronic or mechanical device) operate in
> > accordance with the 2nd law quite well, thank you very much.
> >
> Computers did not arise spontaneously, but living cells supposidly
> did.
Think about the differences in how they are made. Computers are
assembled with directional guidance because the physical
forces that are used to construct it are not directional.
Metal can take the shape of a blob, a wire, a plate, etc. with *NO*
real preferences for one or the other. Water molecules have a
huge preference for the shape of the resulting molecule.
Was information put into H and O to make H2O?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Tracy P. Hamilton
>
> Stephen Poley <sbp...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:3a8264f6...@news.xs4all.nl...
> > On 7 Feb 2001 14:27:23 -0500, "Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Clearly you have accepted one form of increase of "complexity."
> > >> Ergo, you have reason to a) have a usuable form of the notion of
> > >> "complexity" to be able to differentiate between the two, and b)
posit
> a
> > >> barrier stopping one form from becoming another.
> > >>
> > >You ask me to describe for a *barrier*? This is the wrong question!
> >
> > If someone is claiming that 2LOT prohibits either abiogenesis or
> > evolution, it's a perfectly reasonable question.
> >
> The 2nd law states that in a closed system entropy increases over
> time towards complete equilibrium. Abiogenesis, assumes that
> under certain circumstances the opposite can _spontaneously_ occur,
> i.e. entropy can spontaneously decrease over time at the expense of
> the surroundings.
Until such time as you can find a closed (more strictly isolated)
system abiogenesis scenario that has *ever* been proposed,
what is moot are *your* statements.
> How can inorganic matter go from chaos to highly organized state of a
> living cell. You assume that it can without saying how, and then ask me
> to explain why it can't.
It happens, doesn't it?
> Which of these two questions is most approperate?
> If you were to see me on the 2nd floor of a building where no stairs,
> ladder or elevator was present:
> 1) what me what is the barrier that prevents me from rising to
> the 2nd floor or
> 2) ask me how did I get to the 2nd floor when there is no stairs,
> ladder or elevator to use?
I would ask, were you higher previously? It is a possibility, you
know. This would be analogous to a photochemically excited state.
Maybe there was a ladder, then it went away. Like a
reactive intermediate in chemistry. I suppose you are going
to tell us that such things are unlikely, too.
> >
> > < snip of thermodynamics that looks about right but has no visible
> > relevance to the point under discussion. >
> >
> You are simply begging off.
No he is not. Everything has the same entropy at absolute zero,
more or less. Therefore there is no preference for one arrangement
of materials or another. This gives no insight into what happens
with finite temperatures.
Tracy P. Hamilton
John Segerson
Attempting to clarify....
Let's tank the word "transcendent." I failed to notice the
preternatural implications thereof, and did not mean to imply
that. Good grief, people are even replying as if I was arguing
for "intelligent design!"
A number of observations can be made of what could be called
complex order, arising spontaneously and in ways we may rather
well understand. A snowflake is an oft-used example. Other
commonly observed things such as fluid patterns (vorteces,
convection cells, etc), solar systems, etc., present natural
emergence of order.
Creationists and ID devotees argue that life is a kind of order
that cannot arise spontaneously from nature because that would
violate some fundamental natural law. The 2LoT seems like a good
candidate to them because they can mischaracterize it as
something like "a room doesn't clean itself." "Information" is
another good strawman because people can easily be hoodwinked
into thinking that life is a set of "instructions."
While we can see that order is an ordinary spontaneous outcome,
without violating the 2LoT or requiring some kind of
"instructions," the distortions can still be persuasive because
the only non-biological examples are somewhat unsatisfying. I
think this is because of the evident difference in degree between
the complex order of life and that of the most complex and
orderly non-biological phenomenon. Of course, I know of no
metric for complexity or orderliness, so tangible measurements
don't exist, but to most people it seems obvious.
As I said in another post replying to Adam, it is plausible to me
that the mechanism of evolution is capable of producing order and
complexity of a high degree. It is only necessary to suppose
that survival advantage is linked to those properties, and that
isn't too difficult. Given enough time and changes of selection
pressure, order and complexity would accumulate in the
distribution of species (and this is altogether compliant with
the 2LoT, and demands no "source" of "information").
But there is evidently some sort of threshold, isn't there,
beyond which (outside of biology) nature very rarely, if ever,
produces high order and complexity. It seems to me that either
there is a limit to the ordered complexity of non-replicating
spontaneous phenomena, that should be possible to describe, or
there is a strong principle by which existing life detects and
assimilates "competing" complex order.
Does that make any sense?
J:-)
Tracy P. Hamilton
>
> "Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote in message
> news:95s8g4$mcg$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
[snip]
> > Goodrich said:
> > > >> > Please do NOT resort to arguments from incredulity; it's
an
> > > >> > anti-scientific response. If you consider other arguments as
> > > >"unwarranted
> > > >> > extrapolations", then show that barrier and show what complexity
> is.
> For the record: This is a mistake as I said none of the above.
Oops! That should be "Tang said:" above. The attributions were screwed up,
and I tried to correct them.
Tracy P. Hamilton
King Carrot
"Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote:
<<< snap >>>
> Think about the differences in how they are made. Computers are
> assembled with directional guidance because the physical
> forces that are used to construct it are not directional.
>
> Metal can take the shape of a blob, a wire, a plate, etc. with *NO*
> real preferences for one or the other. Water molecules have a
> huge preference for the shape of the resulting molecule.
>
> Was information put into H and O to make H2O?
>
> [snip]
I think your analogy is weak. Not as weak as the tripe you
are refuting, but nevertheless weak.
Metals do indeed display preferences for certain shapes
under certain conditions. When molten, surface tension
will fight with gravity, capilary action (surface tension
under another guise) will defy gravity. These properties
enable some soldering connections on those computer boards.
The manufacturing process can't outwit the natural tendencies
of the metal but must instead coyly set the mood where
the metal will flow.
The second law is at play in this as you well know but
of course design isn't overcoming it but instead finding
conditions where the 2nd law works in the right direction
to gain the desired end. Life is no different. Under
some conditions the 2nd law favours hydrolysis of complex
biopolymers into simpler components: under other conditions
it favours synthesis by dehydration or other means.
There are ample pathways to synthesis of complex organics
and ample pathways to their rendering into simpler
compounds. That web of posibilities makes a self sustaining
cycle a near requirement of any system exposed to an
energy source and an energy sink. The complexity of the
energy flow has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd
law but is instead a function of the available pathways
and those are a function of chemistry. The 2nd law says
nothing about the pathways by which energy flows from
hot to cold, only that net energy must flow in
that direction. Not that I'm telling Tracy anything
he doesn't already know and know well.
Adam Marczyk
There is. If a self-replicating organic molecule arose just about anywhere
in the world today, it'd end up being a meal for a bacterium. Life has
already co-opted just about every niche on this planet; for new forms of
similar complexity to arise, they'd have to possess some kind of significant
advantage over what was already there, which is not to be expected
considering they'd have to outcompete organisms that have already had ~4
billion years to evolve suitably.
> Does that make any sense?
I think so.
Tracy P. Hamilton
"King Carrot" <kingc...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:95um92$36h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <95uji6$pea$1...@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>,
> "Tracy P. Hamilton" <che...@uabdpo.dpo.uab.edu> wrote:
>
> <<< snap >>>
>
> > Think about the differences in how they are made. Computers are
> > assembled with directional guidance because the physical
> > forces that are used to construct it are not directional.
> >
> > Metal can take the shape of a blob, a wire, a plate, etc. with *NO*
> > real preferences for one or the other. Water molecules have a
> > huge preference for the shape of the resulting molecule.
> >
> > Was information put into H and O to make H2O?
> >
> > [snip]
>
> I think your analogy is weak. Not as weak as the tripe you
> are refuting, but nevertheless weak.
>
> Metals do indeed display preferences for certain shapes
> under certain conditions. When molten, surface tension
> will fight with gravity, capilary action (surface tension
> under another guise) will defy gravity.
Take a molten metal for example. The atoms in the middle are pulled
in *all directions* by attractive forces. The ones on the surface only
experience attraction toward the middle. This results in a spherical
shape according to energy minimum principles. It the drop has
to be supported (i.e. there is a gravitational potential difference
between the top and the bottom of the drop, there will be distortion -
unless all atoms can move freely downward (as in a shot tower)).
Perhpas to "hemispherical". Basic geometric shapes that really do
not depend on the detail of the forces involved. Molten sodium same as
molten iron.
Capillary effect is just the same thing, except with a balance between
intra-atomic and external forces.
These preferences are quite weak, and *easily* overcome, which is
why finding a spherical metal object eliminate a lot of natural
possibilities as to how it got that shape.
I have done calculations on small metallic clusters, and I
now hate them with a passion. Do you want to know why?
They can assume almost any shape and no simple bonding patterns
are apparent. There would even be a few surprises, such as
Li5 would rather be planar. But not by much.
> These properties
> enable some soldering connections on those computer boards.
> The manufacturing process can't outwit the natural tendencies
> of the metal but must instead coyly set the mood where
> the metal will flow.
>
> The second law is at play in this as you well know but
> of course design isn't overcoming it but instead finding
> conditions where the 2nd law works in the right direction
> to gain the desired end. Life is no different. Under
> some conditions the 2nd law favours hydrolysis of complex
> biopolymers into simpler components: under other conditions
> it favours synthesis by dehydration or other means.
Which is nothing at all like the computer situation, because under no
conditions is it going to happen spontaneously for the reasons I give.
I am trying (in vain) to get nonchemists to appreciate just how
different chemical reactions are from assembling "parts".
How to think like a chemist.
Parts have to be *given* their shape.
The same goes for assembly of aircraft from parts. It is bogus,
because there is no appreciable energy difference
between a pile of parts and an assembled 747 - no energy
driving force. To ignore that feature in chemistry gives the
result that no molecules can exist at all.
> There are ample pathways to synthesis of complex organics
> and ample pathways to their rendering into simpler
> compounds. That web of posibilities makes a self sustaining
> cycle a near requirement of any system exposed to an
> energy source and an energy sink. The complexity of the
> energy flow has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd
> law but is instead a function of the available pathways
> and those are a function of chemistry. The 2nd law says
> nothing about the pathways by which energy flows from
> hot to cold, only that net energy must flow in
> that direction. Not that I'm telling Tracy anything
> he doesn't already know and know well.
I suspect that if all of chemistry resulted in complex molecules
except life, the creationists would say - life violates the
bond formation principle!
Tracy P. Hamilton
Robert Dean
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3A82C8A9...@research.bell-labs.com...
"closed systems" as the standard defination requires. In the 2nd
sentence, should I have written abiogenesis assumes, that in a
"closed system" entropy can spontaneously decrease over
time......? This is clearly false. In reality there are no open
systems with the _possible_ exception of the universe itself.
Robert Dean
>
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
Ken Cox
> > > The 2nd law states that in a closed system entropy increases over
> > > time towards complete equilibrium. Abiogenesis, assumes that
> > > under certain circumstances the opposite can _spontaneously_ occur,
> > > i.e. entropy can spontaneously decrease over time at the expense of
> > > the surroundings.
> > Somewhere between your two sentences the words "in a closed
> > system" disappeared.
> If you read the 1th sentence, please note that I did include the words
> "closed systems" as the standard defination requires. In the 2nd
> sentence, should I have written abiogenesis assumes, that in a
> "closed system" entropy can spontaneously decrease over
> time......?
No. You should have noted that, unless you can demonstrate that
the system in which abiogenesis occurred is closed, you can't
apply the 2nd law in the form stated in the first sentence.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com