Original Statement of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Pooua
I have attempted to present the Creationist case for various physical phenomena
on sci.physics. I have pointed out that all of science is based on some
metaphysical framework, and that many of the great scientists of the past based
their science on a Christian, Creationist framework. Several people have been
angered by my mention of God in the context of Physics, particularly when I
mention that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Several have
questioned whether I even know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. Some
people write as though the Second Law of Thermodynamics is and always was an
equation. Therefore, I present here the original statement of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. A secondary source quotes the following from "Life of Lord
Kelvin," by Silvanus P. Thompson, Macmillan and Co., London, 1910, pp. 290,
291:
1. There is at present in the material world a universal tendency to the
dissipation of mechanical energy.
2. Any restoration of mechanical energy, without more than an equivalent of
dissipation, is impossible in inanimate material processes, and is probably
never effected by means of organized matter, either endowed with vegetable life
or subjected to the will of an animated creature.
3. Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and within a
finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the habitation
of man as at present constituted, unless operations have been or are to be
performed which are impossible under the laws to which the known operations
going on at present in the material world are subject.
I am informed that in the third proposition is an implied recognition that
evolution of the earth is impossible. Lord Kelvin, you see, was strongly
anti-Darwinian and strongly pro-Creationist. Incidentally, it was left for
latter years to develop the equations that are now used when performing
thermodynamic analysis. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been re-worded
many ways, all having the same general idea that natural processes are always
most likely to proceed from order to disorder, from high potential to low, no
matter what kind of system (open, closed or isolated) is being examined.
Uncle Al
>
> The Original Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
>
> I have attempted to present the Creationist case for various physical phenomena
> on sci.physics.
You are a self-proclaimed fool. Tell us how the postive curvature of
christ's head projected onto the zero curvature surface of the Shroud of
Turin without distortion.
"God can do anything with math He desires." Duh. Great basis for a
technological soceity that - 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
Remember Alan Sokol, fool.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://uncleal.within.net/
http://pw2.netcom.com/~uncleal0/uncleal.htm
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
STL137
Here's the 3 laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You can't win in a closed system.
2) You can't break even in a closed system, except on a very very cold day.
3) It never gets that cold.
One problem, goofball: the Earth is not a closed system. Ha, ha, ha. Think
twice before trying to use good science to support crap religion.
------
STL...@aol.com ===> Website: http://members.aol.com/stl137/
PGP keys: ~~~pgp.html Quotes: ~~~quotes.html
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man" - Thomas Jefferson
richard....@usa.net
has nothing to do with anything I or anyone else have discussed. However,
Uncle Al makes it sound in this post as though I have actually claimed
certain things that some people might wonder about. Uncle Al should be more
careful. Of course, he should avoid spouting insults instead of arguments,
anyway, because his emotional attacks only demonstrate that he is not able to
argue rationally on this subject. In other words, he simply makes a fool of
himself. He doesn't do anything to me. Oh, well, it's his time and reputation
...
In article <3631E1...@ix.netcom.com>,
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Pooua wrote:
> >
> > The Original Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> >
> > I have attempted to present the Creationist case for various physical phenomena
> > on sci.physics.
>
> You are a self-proclaimed fool.
You have proclaimed that I am a fool, but I haven't. Therefore, I am not a
self-proclaimed fool, but an Uncle Al-proclaimed fool. That carries no weight
with me.
>Tell us how the postive curvature of
> christ's head projected onto the zero curvature surface of the Shroud of
> Turin without distortion.
I don't know ... I guess the guy who forged the thing didn't think about it.
I've never accepted the Shroud of Turin as the actual burial shroud of Jesus
Christ. I do not believe the two were ever near each other. Scripture and
ancient records make it clear that the burial cloth of Jesus was a two-piece
affair, a small napkin placed over the face, and a long, continuous strip
that was wrapped around the body and heavily impregnated with spices and
resin. That does not describe the Shroud of Turin. I don't know why you even
ask me about it, as I haven't said anything about it. Surely, Uncle Al knows
better than to assume or create arguments for me?
> "God can do anything with math He desires." Duh. Great basis for a
> technological soceity that - 2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
I don't know where you got that quote, but it wasn't from me. I don't know
the context of the quote, either, so there isn't much I can say about it. All
that I can say is, God *did* what He wanted with math. Now, it is up to us to
find out what He did.
> Remember Alan Sokol, fool.
Who?
Ah, well, I didn't think that Uncle Al would like my pointing out that great
men of science have been opposed to evolution all along. Uncle Al first
called me an idiotwhen I first said that I am a Creationist. Uncle Al would
have called Lord Kelvin an idiot too, because Lord Kelvin was a Creationist
who spent a lot of time and effort denouncing evolution. Lord Kelvin, one of
the fathers of thermodynamics, believed that thermodynamics prohibited the
creation of species by evolution. I know that bugs the snot out of people who
want to make Creationists look like 6th-grade drop-outs with an IQ below 80.
By this I demonstrate that Uncle Al is a liar and a fool. I'm saddened by
that, because he is a smart man, and could have made much better use of his
talents.
Richard Alexander
Richard's Electronic Kingdom
http://members.aol.com/pooua
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark Folsom
<70to9u$hq6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Ordinarily, I would ignore a post like this from Uncle Al, if only because
it
>has nothing to do with anything I or anyone else have discussed. However,
>Uncle Al makes it sound in this post as though I have actually claimed
>certain things that some people might wonder about. Uncle Al should be more
>careful. Of course, he should avoid spouting insults instead of arguments,
>anyway, because his emotional attacks only demonstrate that he is not able
to
>argue rationally on this subject. In other words, he simply makes a fool of
>himself. He doesn't do anything to me. Oh, well, it's his time and
reputation
>...
It's becoming pretty obvious that you respond to rational cogent arguments
in the same way as you do to simple taunts and insults. Every time someone
patiently and clearly points out that you misrepresent the second law of
thermodynamics, you simply evade the issue and return to spouting the same
crap. Uncle Al is cantankerous and doesn't suffer fools well. Sometimes
he's wrong, but he has you pegged exactly.
Lord Kelvin was pretty smart, but like everyone who ever dared to make
conjectures on limited evidence, he was wrong about a number of things.
>I know that bugs the snot out of people who
>want to make Creationists look like 6th-grade drop-outs with an IQ below
80.
None of us has to work to make cretinists look like 6th grade dropouts with
an IQ below 80, you do that for us. You keep posting demonstrated nonsense
to a group full of people who can plainly see that you intentionally
misrepresent the implications of thermodynamics and you are plainly being
willfully deaf to those who patiently and plainly explain your mistakes to
you. The only reason why any rational and honest person would want to
respond civilly to you is to avoid leaving naive readers of your posts with
the impression that you have anything worthwhile or insightful to say.
>By this I demonstrate that Uncle Al is a liar and a fool. I'm saddened by
>that, because he is a smart man, and could have made much better use of his
>talents.
>
I'm sure he feels crushed. At least he understands some fundamental thermo,
which is more than I can say for you. As far as honesty goes, I haven't
seen him beating the same dead horse over and over again when the obvious
has been repeatedly pointed out to him.
--
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer
http://www.redshift.com/~folsom
richard....@usa.net
stl...@aol.com (STL137) wrote:
> Idiot moron.
> Here's the 3 laws of Thermodynamics:
> 1) You can't win in a closed system.
> 2) You can't break even in a closed system, except on a very very cold day.
> 3) It never gets that cold.
Intellectual honesty requires all the professionals on this page to denounce
what you have posted (yes, that includes Uncle Al) because those are not even
close to the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics (there are actually 4 Laws, including
the "Zeroth" Law). If I had posted such nonsense as you have, you can bet I
would never have heard the end of it. You have disgraced the
anti-Creationists. I would have prefered that you had done that without being
an idiot about it, but that may not have been possible. You didn't have to be
a jerk, though.
The 4 Laws of Thermodynamics may be summerized as follows:
0. If Object A and Object B are the same temperature, and Object B and Object
C are the same temperature, then Object A and Object C are the same
temperature.
1. Energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed, only converted into
different forms.
2. The total amount of entropy in Nature is increasing.
3. "Every substance has a finite positive entropy, but at the absolute zero
of temperature the entropy may become zero, and does so become in the case of
a perfect crystalline substance."
There is one more point I should make. The list I have made is the accepted
form of the thermodynamic laws according to Creation scientists. The list
that STL137 made is a common, vulgar expression of what various infidels
imagine the thermodynamic laws to be. I submit that the Creation scientists
can do better science with their version than STL137 could do with his.
Evolutionary philosophy naturally leads to inferior science, to say nothing
of its horrid effects on society.
Gregory Loren Hansen
Ever hear of a joke? STL137's list is correct enough, and it's more fun
to read.
--
"It doesn't matter if you have a beard on the outside. It's the beard on
the inside that counts." -- Action Hank
STL137
form of the thermodynamic laws according to Creation scientists.>>
combination of words in the English language. There are no scientists who
believe in creation. Only morons.
<< The list that STL137 made is a common, vulgar expression of what various
infidels imagine the thermodynamic laws to be. >>
which I thought was accessible to cater to small minds who can't grasp
evolution and have to resort to the made-up terms "microevolution" and
"macroevolution". It also happens to be pretty funny to me.
<<Evolutionary philosophy naturally leads to inferior science, to say nothing
of its horrid effects on society.>>
I agree with this guy:
<<Ever hear of a joke? STL137's list is correct enough, and it's more fun to
read.>>
<<I don't know where you got that quote, but it wasn't from me.>>
values of 2."
<< I don't know the context of the quote, either, so there isn't much I can say
about it. All
that I can say is, God *did* what He wanted with math. Now, it is up to us to
find out what He did.>>
<<By this I demonstrate that Uncle Al is a liar and a fool.>>
is a brilliant man, much more so than you, and always a hoot to read when he
trashes morons like you. I'm surprised he didn't say, "Keep it out of sci.chem,
fool."
Now, let ME do the real laws of thermodynamics.
<<The 4 Laws of Thermodynamics may be summerized as follows:>>
<<0. If Object A and Object B are the same temperature, and Object B and Object
C are the same temperature, then Object A and Object C are the same
temperature.>>
that "heat always flows from warmer bodies to colder bodies, never the
reverse"? Oh well, this one doesn't matter that much.
<<1. Energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed, only converted into
different forms.>>
BUT energy and matter. Try this:
***FIRST***
Energy/matter can never be created or destroyed, unless you repay it back very
very quickly (by way of Heisenberg). Conversion of matter into energy and vice
versa is easy and commonplace.
******
<<2. The total amount of entropy in Nature is increasing.>>
***SECOND***
The disorder in a CLOSED SYSTEM will never decrease. That's not to say it
always increases. It can stay steady at a maximum. (A closed jar of air
illustrates this.) But it never goes down. In a closed system.
******
And now, the most incorrect "law":
<<3. "Every substance has a finite positive entropy, but at the absolute zero
of temperature the entropy may become zero, and does so become in the case of
a perfect crystalline substance.">>
of substances can never be zero. Get this fact through your head:
AT ONE ATMOSPHERE, LIQUID HELIUM CAN NEVER SOLIDIFY. IT ALWAYS RETAINS ENOUGH
MOTION TO STAY LIQUID, EVEN AT ZERO DEGREES KELVIN.
That's a goddamed verified fact, and if you disagree with it, I invite you to
do so and be laughed out of sci.chem.
The REAL third law of thermodynamics is as follows:
***THIRD***
(Carnot proved that the efficiency of a heat engine, even at its theoretical
maximum, can never be 100% unless the heat sink is at absolute zero.) Thus, no
heat engine can be 100% efficient because absolute zero _cannot be reached_.
******
The 3, or 4 laws, can be much more briefly summarized as so:
0) You can't fight the flow of heat.
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even, except on a very cold day.
3) It never gets that cold.
Gavin Tabor
Just a few (rather minor) corrections, for forms sake.
> <<The 4 Laws of Thermodynamics may be summerized as follows:>>
> Summarized, Mr. El Moron Biggo.
> <<0. If Object A and Object B are the same temperature, and Object B and Object
> C are the same temperature, then Object A and Object C are the same
> temperature.>>
> If I remember correctly, that is not the 0th law of thermodynamics. Isn't it
> that "heat always flows from warmer bodies to colder bodies, never the
> reverse"? Oh well, this one doesn't matter that much.
No. The Zero'th law is as stated. Basically its setting up an
equivalence
relation, ie. making it possible to define temperature.
> <<1. Energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed, only converted into
> different forms.>>
> No, that is NOT the 1st law of thermodynamics. NO way, NO how. There is nothing
> BUT energy and matter. Try this:
> ***FIRST***
> Energy/matter can never be created or destroyed, unless you repay it back very
> very quickly (by way of Heisenberg). Conversion of matter into energy and vice
> versa is easy and commonplace.
Since thermo is basically classical, I'd ditch the bit about virtual
particles.
> ******
> <<2. The total amount of entropy in Nature is increasing.>>
> Ewwww, ewww, ewww. You can do much better.
> ***SECOND***
> The disorder in a CLOSED SYSTEM will never decrease. That's not to say it
> always increases. It can stay steady at a maximum. (A closed jar of air
> illustrates this.) But it never goes down. In a closed system.
> ******
> And now, the most incorrect "law":
> <<3. "Every substance has a finite positive entropy, but at the absolute zero
> of temperature the entropy may become zero, and does so become in the case of
> a perfect crystalline substance.">>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Permit me to stop convulsing with laughter. Entropy
> of substances can never be zero. Get this fact through your head:
> AT ONE ATMOSPHERE, LIQUID HELIUM CAN NEVER SOLIDIFY. IT ALWAYS RETAINS ENOUGH
> MOTION TO STAY LIQUID, EVEN AT ZERO DEGREES KELVIN.
> That's a goddamed verified fact, and if you disagree with it, I invite you to
> do so and be laughed out of sci.chem.
> The REAL third law of thermodynamics is as follows:
> ***THIRD***
> (Carnot proved that the efficiency of a heat engine, even at its theoretical
> maximum, can never be 100% unless the heat sink is at absolute zero.) Thus, no
> heat engine can be 100% efficient because absolute zero _cannot be reached_.
This is one definition of the 3rd law. Another is that you cannot reach
absolute zero in a finite number of (reversable?) steps. I think your
previous statement about the 0th law (direction of heat flow) can be
reformulated as a statement of the 3rd law, but I'd have to check.
They are all equivalent anyhow.
Gavin
> ******
> The 3, or 4 laws, can be much more briefly summarized as so:
> 0) You can't fight the flow of heat.
> 1) You can't win.
> 2) You can't break even, except on a very cold day.
> 3) It never gets that cold.
> But I repeat myself, and here I will end.
> ------
> STL...@aol.com ===> Website: http://members.aol.com/stl137/
> PGP keys: ~~~pgp.html Quotes: ~~~quotes.html
> "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of
> tyranny over the mind of man" - Thomas Jefferson
--
Dr.Gavin Tabor
email : ga...@ic.ac.uk
home page : monet.me.ic.ac.uk/people/gavin/gavin.html
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Imperial College,
London SW7 2BY
richard....@usa.net
glha...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
> In article <70u7me$37e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <richard....@usa.net> wrote:
> >In article <19981024173904...@ng141.aol.com>,
> > stl...@aol.com (STL137) wrote:
> >> Idiot moron.
> >> Here's the 3 laws of Thermodynamics:
> >> 1) You can't win in a closed system.
> >> 3) It never gets that cold.
> >
> >what you have posted (yes, that includes Uncle Al) because those are not even
> >close to the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics (there are actually 4 Laws, including
> >the "Zeroth" Law). If I had posted such nonsense as you have, you can bet I
> >would never have heard the end of it. You have disgraced the
> >anti-Creationists. I would have prefered that you had done that without being
> >an idiot about it, but that may not have been possible. You didn't have to be
> >a jerk, though.
> Ever hear of a joke? STL137's list is correct enough, and it's more fun
> to read.
Sure, I've heard of a joke. I doubt there are very many jokes that begin,
"idiot moron," addressed to the recipient, at least not jokes above a 9
year-old mentality.
I've also heard of a bully, a jerk, and a bigot. Someone who calls another
person an idiot, a fool or a moron not because the person so labeled is one
in fact, but because the victim acknowledges that there is a God, is a bigot,
and is engaging in the same religious persecution that lead to the Holocaust
inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis. Coincidentally, Hitler justified his hate
by evolutionary theory. So does stl137. I take this sort of behavior quite
seriously. So should you.
There are certain people on Usenet who hate God, and hate anyone who respects
God. The only reason these people hate Creationists is because Creationism
begins all things with God. Contrary to stl137's claim, there are several
practicing scientists in our national laboratories who are Creationists.
Stl's claim is another lie by those people who wish to justify hatred. That
is why he uses insults and abbusive "jokes" instead of reason.
richard....@usa.net
stl...@aol.com (STL137) wrote:
> <<The list I have made is the accepted
> form of the thermodynamic laws according to Creation scientists.>>
> Aw, nuts. You've gone and made me angry. "Creation science" is an INVALID
> combination of words in the English language. There are no scientists who
> believe in creation. Only morons.
Morons don't work for Sandia National Lab. Morons don't work for Los Alamos
National Lab. I have personally met Creation scientists who work at each of
these labs as professional researchers. Therefore, your statement is
logically falsified.
The history of Science is filled with great scientists who were Creationists.
That is the way it has always been, and continues to be.
> <<I don't know where you got that quote, but it wasn't from me.>>
> I have it on my Quotes web page. It's an anonymous thing. "2+2 = 5 for large
> values of 2."
> << I don't know the context of the quote, either, so there isn't much I can say
> about it. All
> that I can say is, God *did* what He wanted with math. Now, it is up to us to
> find out what He did.>>
> I cannot reply to this statement until I stop convulsing with laughter.
I'm sure that Einstein would have agreed with my statement. He believed in
the Creator God, too.
> <<By this I demonstrate that Uncle Al is a liar and a fool.>>
> Uncle Al is certainly abrasive, and not as helpful as he thinks he is. But he
> is a brilliant man, much more so than you, and always a hoot to read when he
> trashes morons like you. I'm surprised he didn't say, "Keep it out of sci.chem,
> fool."
Why would he say that? If my post is in sci.chem, it's not because of
anything I've done. I only posted this to sci.physics. Are you reading it on
sci.chem?
> Now, let ME do the real laws of thermodynamics.
> <<The 4 Laws of Thermodynamics may be summerized as follows:>>
> Summarized, Mr. El Moron Biggo.
Excuse me. Summarized. I know how important spelling and grammar are on
Usenet, so on those grounds, you are quite right to insult me severely for
that.
> <<1. Energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed, only converted into
> different forms.>>
> No, that is NOT the 1st law of thermodynamics. NO way, NO how. There is nothing
> BUT energy and matter.
Yes, there is only matter and energy. The 1st Law of Thermo just says they
are never created nor destroyed. So, what's the problem?
Try this:
> ***FIRST***
> Energy/matter can never be created or destroyed, unless you repay it back very
> very quickly (by way of Heisenberg). Conversion of matter into energy and vice
> versa is easy and commonplace.
Matter and energy are never created nor destroyed, only converted into
different forms, just like I said. So, what's the problem?
> <<2. The total amount of entropy in Nature is increasing.>>
> Ewwww, ewww, ewww. You can do much better.
It works.
> ***SECOND***
> The disorder in a CLOSED SYSTEM will never decrease. That's not to say it
> always increases. It can stay steady at a maximum. (A closed jar of air
> illustrates this.) But it never goes down. In a closed system.
Well, let's look at some open systems, then. How about an ice cube on a table
with Sun shining on it? That's about as open as anything else on the Planet.
Energy is being pumped in, too, just like evolutionist's say must happen for
evolution (rise in order and complexity) to occur. Do we see a rise in order
and complexity in this open system? I don't think so. We see what we always
see, that all of Nature naturally tends to disorder. Adding energy to this
system did nothing to add order to the ice cube. Added energy only decreased
the order.
Ok, well, lets try a bunch of ammino acids in a pond with sunlight. Will the
ammino acids form into DNA? Will they form into anything more ordered and
complex? No; again, we see what we see throughout the Universe; Nature
naturally goes to disorder.
Well, let's try the famous Miller experiment. Let's put all the elements of a
hypothetical "primitive Earth" in a big jar of pure water and add electricity
and UV light. Leave this for any length of time, and what do we find? We find
that the rate of formation of ammino acids is the same as rate of destruction
of ammino acids. That's why Miller had to use a chemical trap to extract
ammino acids from his system; the thermodynamic equilibrium of the experiment
would not have allowed the buildup of ammino acids. The trouble is, once his
ammino acids were removed from the system, they had nothing to assemble them
into anything else.
Go ahead; explain any kind of natural, non-life process that will create
proteins or DNA. Explain with thermodynamic diagrams how DNA (supposing it
ever formed without a Creator) could arrange its code into
increasingly-complex genes. You should realize there are more combinations
possible than there are atoms in the Universe. Why should the useful
combinations be there for natural selection to choose? It is much, much more
likely that all the arrangements would be worthless, and life would go
extinct, if it ever formed in the first place.
> And now, the most incorrect "law":
> <<3. "Every substance has a finite positive entropy, but at the absolute zero
> of temperature the entropy may become zero, and does so become in the case of
> a perfect crystalline substance.">>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Permit me to stop convulsing with laughter. Entropy
> of substances can never be zero.
No, it can't, can it?
I don't suppose there are any people on sci.physics who would like to inform
stl that what he is objecting to is the formal statement of the third law as
it appears in most thermodynamic texts? No, I doubt it; Stl is one of the
"good guys," because he is attacking a Creationist. You cowards. You would
let the Nazis take the Jews, just as you would let them take the
Creationists. That is my point in this episode. I want you to know that you
have allowed your emotions on who I am to keep you from standing up for the
truth.
> Get this fact through your head:
> AT ONE ATMOSPHERE, LIQUID HELIUM CAN NEVER SOLIDIFY. IT ALWAYS RETAINS ENOUGH
> MOTION TO STAY LIQUID, EVEN AT ZERO DEGREES KELVIN.
The correct term adopted a few decades ago drops the word, "degrees" in the
Kelvin system. Your statement should read, "zero kelvin."
Helium usually cannot solidify because it lacks the needed Van der Waal
forces (not just because of any motion it might have). It was solidified at
room temperature in 1926 (melting pressure at 24° C is 115 kilobars).
However, liquid helium is not a crystal, either, so your use of it to
disprove my statement is in error.
> The REAL third law of thermodynamics is as follows:
> ***THIRD***
> (Carnot proved that the efficiency of a heat engine, even at its theoretical
> maximum, can never be 100% unless the heat sink is at absolute zero.)
>Thus, no
> heat engine can be 100% efficient because absolute zero _cannot be >reached_.
True, but irrelevant. If a perfect crystal (which does not exist) were to be
cooled to absolute zero (which we cannot reach), it's entropy would become
zero. Thermodynamics uses several impossible ideas (these are called,
"limits"). Your objection does not change my statement. Your statement is not
really a statement of the 3rd Law, though it is an example of its
application.
BTW, "A reservoir at absolute zero cannot have heat rejected to it by a
Carnot engine operating between a higher temperature reservoir and the one at
absolute zero." [Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia]
Andy Liddiard
> And now, the most incorrect "law":
> <<3. "Every substance has a finite positive entropy, but at the absolute zero
> of temperature the entropy may become zero, and does so become in the case of
> a perfect crystalline substance.">>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Permit me to stop convulsing with laughter. Entropy
> of substances can never be zero. Get this fact through your head:
> AT ONE ATMOSPHERE, LIQUID HELIUM CAN NEVER SOLIDIFY. IT ALWAYS RETAINS ENOUGH
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> MOTION TO STAY LIQUID, EVEN AT ZERO DEGREES KELVIN.
> That's a goddamed verified fact, and if you disagree with it, I invite you to
> do so and be laughed out of sci.chem.
Aaaah, you might have to accept that pressure was unspecific in the
original statement ;). I have a question about BECs elsewhere which you
might/might not like to help me with. Hmmm. Presumably that was a
superposition of statements.
cheers
Andy
"The more I learn, the less I know"
STL137
concentration in the sciences is LESS (not zero) than in the general public. As
I said before, "creation science" is Jabibbian: an invalid word combination in
the English langauge. The history of science may be filled with great
creationist scientists, but the history of biological science, and EVOLUTIONARY
science in particular, has no creationists.
You maroon. Einstein believed in a subtle God that revealed himself through the
workings of the universe, NOT a personal God that troubled himself with the
lives of men and created the Earth.
The sci.chem statement is what Uncle Al always says.
Your statement of the 1st law was unclear.
The 2nd law was incorrect. Entropy can remain constant. You should have also
mentioned closed systems, not just Nature.
Well, let's look at some open systems, then. <<How about an ice cube on a table
with Sun shining on it? That's about as open as anything else on the Planet.>>
<<Energy is being pumped in, too, just like evolutionist's say must happen for
evolution (rise in order and complexity) to occur.>>
<< Do we see a rise in order
and complexity in this open system? I don't think so.>>
<< We see what we always
see, that all of Nature naturally tends to disorder.>>
<< Adding energy to this
system did nothing to add order to the ice cube. Added energy only decreased
the order.>>
They do not reproduce. Therefore your "wrongo" statement is wrong: order can
increase temporarily in living systems. The 2nd law argument is an old, tired
one that pisses me off the more and more I hear it.
<<Ok, well, lets try a bunch of ammino acids in a pond with sunlight. Will the
ammino acids form into DNA?>>
<< Will they form into anything more ordered and
complex?>>
<< No; again, we see what we see throughout the Universe; Nature naturally goes
to disorder.>>
you should brush up. DNA IS NOT MADE OUT OF AMINO ACIDS! Ha, ha, ha, ha. Har,
har, har.... *laughs violently*
I'm not even going to point out that you lied about Stanley Miller's
experiment. He extracted amino acids only when the experiment was over. Aw,
nuts, there I went and pointed it out.
I ain't EVEN going to respond to that next paragraph.
That crystalline substance crap is not in any physics text I've ever seen. And
that ad hominem crap I won't respond to.
<<Helium usually cannot solidify because it lacks the needed Van der Waal
forces (not just because of any motion it might have)>>
I have better things to do, like take the square root of 2 to the 100th decimal
place by hand. This is the last response you'll see from me.
*breathes in deeply*
ROT IN IGNORANCE!
*exhales*
*wheezes*
Cough...cough...
Bye.
Jim Carr
}
} Pooua wrote:
} > The Original Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
} > I have attempted to present the Creationist case for various physical
} > phenomena on sci.physics.
}
} You are a self-proclaimed fool.
richard....@usa.net writes:
>
>You have proclaimed that I am a fool, but I haven't.
You posted a definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says
it applies only in an isolated system, then applied it to an open
system and claimed a violation. Good enough for me.
And so far all of your examples have been from biology, not physics.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
richard....@usa.net
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> Uncl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> }
> } Pooua wrote:
> } > The Original Statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
> } > I have attempted to present the Creationist case for various physical
> } > phenomena on sci.physics.
> }
> } You are a self-proclaimed fool.
>
> richard....@usa.net writes:
> >
> >You have proclaimed that I am a fool, but I haven't.
>
> You posted a definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says
> it applies only in an isolated system,
No, I have not. If someone were to claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
applies only to isolated systems, they would be recognized by physicists and
engineers as a fraud. You are the one who is making such a claim.
>then applied it to an open system and claimed a violation.
All natural systems tend to disorder. This is most pronounced in isolated
systems, but even open systems will go to the maximum entropy possible. You
have yet to provide an example of any system in which the most likely state
is both more ordered and not pre-determined. Crystals are more ordered than
solutions, but the order is predetermined, the order forms as the
accumulating atoms go to the lowest energy state and even crystals cannot be
perfectly ordered. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, crystalline order
does not generate randomly (otherwise, the unit cell would be unpredictable).
Crystal growth is random, but crystalline order is based on the inherent
structure of the crystallizing substance.
> And so far all of your examples have been from biology, not physics.
So what? Biological systems still have to obey the rules of physics. If,
however, I only posted physics examples, the connection it has to evolution
would not be explicit. I think it is important to show that evolution is a
fraudulent theory based on the ultimate science, that of Physics.
Jim Carr
>
>> You posted a definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says
>> it applies only in an isolated system,
>
>No, I have not.
Someone using your name did.
Richard Herring
> All natural systems tend to disorder. This is most pronounced in isolated
> systems, but even open systems will go to the maximum entropy possible. You
> have yet to provide an example of any system in which the most likely state
> is both more ordered and not pre-determined.
Perhaps you could give a reference for the physics text where
you found this definition? "Non-pre-determined order" is not a concept
I am familiar with.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
Jim Carr
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
|
| richard....@usa.net writes:
| >You have proclaimed that I am a fool, but I haven't.
|
| it applies only in an isolated system,
In article <71tihv$su9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
richard....@usa.net writes:
>
>No, I have not.
You have. Consult <19981030213124...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
where you, or someone pretending to be you, wrote
)SECOND LAW
)"In every neighborhood of any state G of an adiabatically isolated system there
)are states inaccessible from G. (This formulation of the Second Law is known as
)the Principle of Caratheodory.)
quoting
)5. "Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia," by Douglas Considine. Sixth
)Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. Copyright (C) 1983.
>If someone were to claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
>applies only to isolated systems, they would be recognized by physicists and
>engineers as a fraud.
Read your own article.
Of course, in the case of a number of the defintions you quote,
you have to know what the words mean. You might also look in
Huang.
mah...@gte.net
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> richard....@usa.net writes:
> >
> >> You posted a definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says
> >> it applies only in an isolated system,
> >
>
> Someone using your name did.
I hate it when that happens! Ruins your whole Internet Surfing Day.
Mahipal "But it wasn't Me when I posted that|this message" Virdy
mah...@gte.net
richard....@usa.net wrote:
> In article <19981025012923...@ng104.aol.com>,
> stl...@aol.com (STL137) wrote:
> > <<The list I have made is the accepted
> > form of the thermodynamic laws according to Creation scientists.>>
> > Aw, nuts. You've gone and made me angry. "Creation science" is an INVALID
> > combination of words in the English language. There are no scientists who
> > believe in creation. Only morons.
>
> Morons don't work for Sandia National Lab. Morons don't work for Los Alamos
> National Lab. I have personally met Creation scientists who work at each of
> these labs as professional researchers. Therefore, your statement is
> logically falsified.
"Having a job" and "Doing a job" is a major quantum jump of distinction. I
know, ask my Supervisor!
> The history of Science is filled with great scientists who were Creationists.
> That is the way it has always been, and continues to be.
Scientists were all Human far far before but a few were "Creationists".
What I mean by this one line -- ignoring all else I write in this thread --
why do you even have to make this connection of History+Creationists? Sounds
to Me like they *have* jobs?! {:-),:-|,:-(} Click your pick.
This is the way my question has been, and will remain continuing to be.
> > <<I don't know where you got that quote, but it wasn't from me.>>
> > I have it on my Quotes web page. It's an anonymous thing. "2+2 = 5 for large
> > values of 2."
> > << I don't know the context of the quote, either, so there isn't much I can
> > say about it. All
> > that I can say is, God *did* what He wanted with math. Now, it is up to us
> > to find out what He did.>>
> > I cannot reply to this statement until I stop convulsing with laughter.
>
> I'm sure that Einstein would have agreed with my statement. He believed in
> the Creator God, too.
>
> > <<By this I demonstrate that Uncle Al is a liar and a fool.>>
> > Uncle Al is certainly abrasive, and not as helpful as he thinks he is. But
> > he
> > is a brilliant man, much more so than you, and always a hoot to read when he
> > trashes morons like you. I'm surprised he didn't say, "Keep it out of
> >sci.chem,
> > fool."
>
> Why would he say that? If my post is in sci.chem, it's not because of
> anything I've done. I only posted this to sci.physics. Are you reading it on
> sci.chem?
This happens in DejaNews often. Some might think it a 'Feature' to sell and
advertise and take advantage of as a plus of your product over the
"Competition". Others might think it a miserable annoying software 'Bug'. Just
depends on where your paycheck is coming from.
What occurs at DejaNews is you click the <view thread> button and something
actually very neat happens. All of Usenet threads with matching title
keywords get threaded. You decide -- is it Feature or Bug? I don't know, I
don't care. IDKIDC in future use of my Usenet writing. Unless it's IDKIDC for
"I Do Know, I Do Care". Binary sucks.
OK.. as I was saying. In this way some threads get cross-pollinated across
groups. I make it a point to check the ngs line prior to posting. Takes time
but then again what else *is* there to do all that much Reall(y)? I'm funny
No?
Mahipal "http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mahipal/resume98.html" Virdy
richard....@usa.net
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
> In article <71qhi6$fpd$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
> |
> | it applies only in an isolated system,
>
> richard....@usa.net writes:
> >
> >No, I have not.
>
> You have. Consult <19981030213124...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
> where you, or someone pretending to be you, wrote
>
> )SECOND LAW
> )"In every neighborhood of any state G of an adiabatically isolated system there
> )are states inaccessible from G. (This formulation of the Second Law is known as
> )the Principle of Caratheodory.)
>
> quoting
>
> )5. "Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia," by Douglas Considine. Sixth
> )Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. Copyright (C) 1983.
>
> >If someone were to claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> >applies only to isolated systems, they would be recognized by physicists and
> >engineers as a fraud.
>
> Read your own article.
>
> Of course, in the case of a number of the defintions you quote,
> you have to know what the words mean. You might also look in
> Huang.
The operative word is "only," which you used. You said, "...it applies only
in an isolated system," The sources I quoted said that it applies to an
isolated system, but they did not *limit* the application to just isolated
systems. Indeed, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (Macropaedia Volume 18, page
294) says,
"...Thus, the entropy of an isolated system may remain constant or may
increase, but a decrease of entropy in an isolated system is impossible.
Because any process in any system may be conceptually changed to a process in
an isolated system by including in the isolated system all systems with which
the original system interacts, the conclusion represented by equation (7) is
of great generality."
Two main points that I should make here are: (1) this statement only says
with certainty what happens in an isolated system. It does not make any
statement about what happens in an open system, except to say that an open
system can be considered an isolated system simply by re-forming the
boundaries; (2) Evolutionists would point out that the most significant
amount of entropy increase in the Sun-Earth system is in Sun. I can't argue
with that. However, I can argue that increased entropy in Sun does not
automatically results in Earthly systems tending towards lower entropy.
Richard Alexander
Richard's Electronic Kingdom
http://members.aol.com/pooua
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
STL137
groups. I make it a point to check the ngs line prior to posting. Takes time
but then again what else *is* there to do all that much Reall(y)? I'm funny
No?
>>
proprietary AOL newsreader, and if you had read *my* reply, you'd know that I
said that Uncle Al has a tendency on sci.chem to say exactly that. :-D
Jim Carr
j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
|
| In article <71qhi6$fpd$1...@news.fsu.edu>,
| j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
| |
| | You posted a definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says
| | it applies only in an isolated system,
|
| In article <71tihv$su9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
| richard....@usa.net writes:
| >No, I have not.
|
| You have. Consult <19981030213124...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
| where you, or someone pretending to be you, wrote
|
| )SECOND LAW
| )"In every neighborhood of any state G of an adiabatically isolated system
| )is known as the Principle of Caratheodory.)
|
| quoting
|
| )5. "Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia," by Douglas Considine. Sixth
| )Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. Copyright (C) 1983.
|
| >If someone were to claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
| >applies only to isolated systems, they would be recognized by physicists and
| >engineers as a fraud.
|
| Read your own article.
|
| Of course, in the case of a number of the defintions you quote,
| you have to know what the words mean. You might also look in
| Huang.
In article <722ghn$s5b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
richard....@usa.net writes:
>
>The operative word is "only," which you used. You said, "...it applies only
>in an isolated system,"
No, there are several words in the sentence, all operative. That
particular "it" is the one that "only" applies in isolated systesm
as the text you quoted clearly states.
>The sources I quoted said that it applies to an
>isolated system, but they did not *limit* the application to just isolated
>systems.
That one did, or you cannot read. Others, such as
)In words, this expression states that the rate of change of entropy
)inside the control volume plus the net rate of entropy flow out is
)equal to the sum of two terms, the integrated heat transfer surface
)term and the positive internal irreversibility production term.
are so limited, but those have addition terms you have to worry about;
terms that you typically ignore and have certainly not evaluated for
any specific case.
>Indeed, the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" (Macropaedia Volume 18, page
>294) says,
>
>"...Thus, the entropy of an isolated system may remain constant or may
>increase, but a decrease of entropy in an isolated system is impossible. ...
Indeed. So why do you ignore this?
>Because any process in any system may be conceptually changed to a process in
>an isolated system by including in the isolated system all systems with which
>the original system interacts, the conclusion represented by equation (7) is
>of great generality."
The problem, evident to every physicist, is that you ignore this.
>Two main points that I should make here are: (1) this statement only says
>with certainty what happens in an isolated system.
Excuse me, but that is the point we have been trying to make to you.
Or should I now just quote the famous expert on this subject:
"If someone were to claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies
only to isolated systems, they would be recognized by physicists and
engineers as a fraud."
Clearly you don't even read what you write from day to day, or you
believe that you yourself are a fraud.
>It does not make any
>statement about what happens in an open system, except to say that an open
>system can be considered an isolated system simply by re-forming the
>boundaries;
Exactly. So why do *you* claim it applies in a non-isolated system?
Or, when considering a non-isolated system, why don't you apply the
appropriate version for that case?
>(2) Evolutionists would point out that the most significant
>amount of entropy increase in the Sun-Earth system is in Sun. I can't argue
>with that.
Then why do you?
>However, I can argue that increased entropy in Sun does not
>automatically results in Earthly systems tending towards lower entropy.
To do so requires a calculation that you have not done.
Pooua
>From: r...@gmrc.gecm.com (Richard Herring)
>Date: 11/6/98 9:01 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <71v2vu$ir0$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
Some examples of pre-determined order are those normally given when someone
claims that order rises spontaneously in nature all the time. For example, the
order that comes from a substance that crystallizes is caused by the specifics
of the atomic or molecular attraction as it attempts to arrange itself to
minimum energy. The information for the system did not spontaneously form; it
is an inherent property of the atoms or molecules.
Another example is a seed or a zygote. The rise in order after fertilization is
nominal; only molecules and smaller particles are described by the 2LoT. Even
if the mass of the body were to represent a rise in order, its form is based on
the inherent information contained in the DNA of the organism.
Talk.origins does not mind letting people have the wrong idea about this, so
long as it strengthens their faith in evolution.
Steven B. Harris
writes:
>>Subject: Re: Original Statement of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
>>From: r...@gmrc.gecm.com (Richard Herring)
>>Date: 11/6/98 9:01 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <71v2vu$ir0$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
>
fertilization is
>nominal; only molecules and smaller particles are described by the
2LoT. Even
>if the mass of the body were to represent a rise in order, its form is
based on
>the inherent information contained in the DNA of the organism.
No, it isn't. Your fingerprints or retinal patterns are not coded
by your DNA. Nor much of the fine structure of your brain (which is
the same kind of thing).
jmfb...@aol.com
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
<snip blather>
>
> No, it isn't. Your fingerprints or retinal patterns are not coded
>by your DNA. Nor much of the fine structure of your brain (which is
>the same kind of thing).
What does determine fingerprint pattern? What you said above implies
that a clone would have a different finger print (do sheep have the
equivalent of fingerprints to check this out?).
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Jim Carr
}
} In article <71tihv$su9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
} richard....@usa.net wrote:
} > All natural systems tend to disorder. This is most pronounced in isolated
} > systems, but even open systems will go to the maximum entropy possible. You
} > have yet to provide an example of any system in which the most likely state
} > is both more ordered and not pre-determined.
}
} Perhaps you could give a reference for the physics text where
} you found this definition? "Non-pre-determined order" is not a concept
} I am familiar with.
In article <19981119203124...@ng37.aol.com>
po...@aol.com (Pooua) writes:
>
>Some examples of pre-determined order are those normally given when someone
>claims that order rises spontaneously in nature all the time.
You might try answering the question above.
You might also try working out the thermodynamics of a given case.
>For example, the
>order that comes from a substance that crystallizes is caused by the specifics
>of the atomic or molecular attraction as it attempts to arrange itself to
>minimum energy.
In what way is that ordered predetermined, when more than one
crystal structure is possible? Ever hear of carbon?
(Snip examples that require cross-post to talk.origins.)
Robert Low
>What does determine fingerprint pattern? What you said above implies
>that a clone would have a different finger print (do sheep have the
>equivalent of fingerprints to check this out?).
Easier to use identical twins...I seem to recall that identical
twins do not have identical fingerprints. (Hence the historical
difficulty of deciding whether twins are monozygotic or fraternal.
With the advent of genetic profiling, this should not be such
an issue.)
I'd guess that the fine structure of fingerprints is easily
affected by slight chemical gradients in the womb---but I
couldn't say for sure.
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
jmfb...@aol.com
mtx...@coventry.ac.uk (Robert Low) wrote:
>In article <733pcc$a5u$1...@strato.ultra.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>What does determine fingerprint pattern? What you said above implies
>>that a clone would have a different finger print (do sheep have the
>>equivalent of fingerprints to check this out?).
>
>Easier to use identical twins...I seem to recall that identical
>twins do not have identical fingerprints. (Hence the historical
>difficulty of deciding whether twins are monozygotic or fraternal.
>With the advent of genetic profiling, this should not be such
>an issue.)
Twins are only identical (in the strictest sense of the word) at
the time the zygote splits into two separate blastomeres and
even then they're not exactly the same (my assumption).
Identical in this sense just implies that the two came
from the same zygote; it doesn't mean that they are
exactly the same.
>
>I'd guess that the fine structure of fingerprints is easily
>affected by slight chemical gradients in the womb---but I
>couldn't say for sure.
That is a guess but I don't that it's the case. Since my
fingerprints are changing now, the idea that DNA might
determine the pattern was a surprise to me; I had never
considered the possibility because I'm assuming that my
DNA hasn't changed over time.
Richard Herring
> >Subject: Re: Original Statement of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> >From: r...@gmrc.gecm.com (Richard Herring)
> >Date: 11/6/98 9:01 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: <71v2vu$ir0$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> All natural systems tend to disorder. This is most pronounced in isolated
> >> systems, but even open systems will go to the maximum entropy possible. You
> >> have yet to provide an example of any system in which the most likely state
> >> is both more ordered and not pre-determined.
> >
> >Perhaps you could give a reference for the physics text where
> >you found this definition? "Non-pre-determined order" is not a concept
> >I am familiar with.
> Some examples of pre-determined order are those normally given when someone
> claims that order rises spontaneously in nature all the time. For example, the
> order that comes from a substance that crystallizes is caused by the specifics
> of the atomic or molecular attraction as it attempts to arrange itself to
> minimum energy.
I see. Couldn't you find the reference I asked for?
> The information for the system did not spontaneously form; it
> is an inherent property of the atoms or molecules.
No wonder you're confused. You are talking about *information*,
not entropy. No mention of that in the 2nd Law I'm familiar with.
> Another example is a seed or a zygote. The rise in order after
> fertilization is
> nominal;
> only molecules and smaller particles are described by the 2LoT.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a new and startling revelation. Please post a reference
to the physics text where you found it.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
Ken Muldrew
>Twins are only identical (in the strictest sense of the word) at
>the time the zygote splits into two separate blastomeres and
>even then they're not exactly the same (my assumption).
>Identical in this sense just implies that the two came
>from the same zygote; it doesn't mean that they are
>exactly the same.
How is that different from a genetic clone?
>That is a guess but I don't that it's the case. Since my
>fingerprints are changing now, the idea that DNA might
>determine the pattern was a surprise to me; I had never
>considered the possibility because I'm assuming that my
>DNA hasn't changed over time.
The DNA in your somatic cells (non-germ cells, i.e. just about
everything in your body) does change; sometimes dramatically so.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca
Steven B. Harris
>
>In article <732tt4$5...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
><snip blather>
>
>>
>> No, it isn't. Your fingerprints or retinal patterns are not coded
>>by your DNA. Nor much of the fine structure of your brain (which is
>>the same kind of thing).
>
The environment plus random influences, presumably.
What you said above implies
>that a clone would have a different finger print (do sheep have the
>equivalent of fingerprints to check this out?).
You don't need sheep. Identical twins, which are naturally cloned
human embryos, have different fingerprints.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Steven B. Harris
>Twins are only identical (in the strictest sense of the word) at
>the time the zygote splits into two separate blastomeres and
>even then they're not exactly the same (my assumption).
>Identical in this sense just implies that the two came
>from the same zygote; it doesn't mean that they are
>exactly the same.
Nobody ever said it did. Anybody with eyes can determine that
"idential twins" are hardly ever *phenotypically* identical (and the
difference is usually MUCH grosser than fingerprint differences). The
point is that they are only GENETICALLY identical. That means your
genes are only a loose recipe for what you are. They are, again, NOT a
blueprint. Recipe, not blueprint. Recipe, not blueprint. Recipe, not
blueprint. Okay?
This discussion is in the context of a creationist claiming that all
the information to make a living creature is already in its genes from
the moment of conception. Nonsense. Most of the interesting stuff
about an adult human isn't in the genes at all. There seems to be some
assumption that the brain is like a computer, and all the learning you
do changes nothing much-- sort of like loading a program into RAM in a
computer. But that's not how the brain members and adapts to the
environment from its first formation. The brain, from embryo on, is
massively changed by environment. A more appropriate metaphor might be
that the brain is like a huge piece of abstract wall-art produced by
100 people writing, dabbing, drawing, and randomly throwing paint at a
huge canvas. The genes are a general description of how to set up and
stretch such a canvas, plus general directions about how to make a
peice of abstract art in this way. But that particular PIECE of art,
is something else again. Its most interesting information is a
function of its HISTORY.
jmfb...@aol.com
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>In <7341kf$u01$4...@ligarius.ultra.net> jmfb...@aol.com writes:
>
>>Twins are only identical (in the strictest sense of the word) at
>>the time the zygote splits into two separate blastomeres and
>>even then they're not exactly the same (my assumption).
>>Identical in this sense just implies that the two came
>>from the same zygote; it doesn't mean that they are
>>exactly the same.
>
>
> Nobody ever said it did. Anybody with eyes can determine that
>"idential twins" are hardly ever *phenotypically* identical (and the
>difference is usually MUCH grosser than fingerprint differences). The
>point is that they are only GENETICALLY identical. That means your
>genes are only a loose recipe for what you are. They are, again, NOT a
>blueprint. Recipe, not blueprint. Recipe, not blueprint. Recipe, not
>blueprint. Okay?
Calm down, buddy.
>
> This discussion is in the context of a creationist claiming that all
>the information to make a living creature is already in its genes from
>the moment of conception. Nonsense.
My apologies. I thread-drifted to a more interesting subject than
creationism.
> Most of the interesting stuff
>about an adult human isn't in the genes at all. There seems to be some
>assumption that the brain is like a computer, and all the learning you
>do changes nothing much-- sort of like loading a program into RAM in a
>computer.
That is not my assumption at all even though I use language based
on the computer business which is my background. The people who
have discussions with me also use that lingo because I don't
understand theirs...yet. And, furthermore, I only use the
lingo as an analogy.
> But that's not how the brain members and adapts to the
>environment from its first formation. The brain, from embryo on, is
>massively changed by environment. A more appropriate metaphor might be
>that the brain is like a huge piece of abstract wall-art produced by
>100 people writing, dabbing, drawing, and randomly throwing paint at a
>huge canvas. The genes are a general description of how to set up and
>stretch such a canvas, plus general directions about how to make a
>peice of abstract art in this way. But that particular PIECE of art,
>is something else again. Its most interesting information is a
>function of its HISTORY.
>
Since I do not delve in art, I do not use art as an analogy. I
prefer to work with what I know; it's my method of learning.
jmfb...@aol.com
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>In <733pcc$a5u$1...@strato.ultra.net> jmfb...@aol.com writes:
>>
>> sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>><snip blather>
>>
>>>
>>> No, it isn't. Your fingerprints or retinal patterns are not coded
>>>by your DNA. Nor much of the fine structure of your brain (which is
>>>the same kind of thing).
>>
>>What does determine fingerprint pattern?
>
>The environment plus random influences, presumably.
I think this is a bad presumption.
>
> What you said above implies
>>that a clone would have a different finger print (do sheep have the
>>equivalent of fingerprints to check this out?).
>
>
> You don't need sheep. Identical twins, which are naturally cloned
>human embryos, have different fingerprints.
As far as I could tell, the cloning process for the sheep was
different than the process that identical twins are produced.
Human embryos are not the things that are cloned; you should
know that.
>
> Steve Harris, M.D.
Yes, well, I have a very bad attitude w.r.t. people who have
M.D. after their names [slightly pissed emoticon describing its
bias].
jmfb...@aol.com
kmul...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Ken Muldrew) wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Twins are only identical (in the strictest sense of the word) at
>>the time the zygote splits into two separate blastomeres and
>>even then they're not exactly the same (my assumption).
>>Identical in this sense just implies that the two came
>>from the same zygote; it doesn't mean that they are
>>exactly the same.
>
I'm drawing the line of the differences based on the time
the second zygote was produced. Mainly because the cells
haven't differentiated. And, please note, that this
is all my personal hypothesizing. I'm not trying to make
any claims that my way the only way.
The genetic clone (as in the sheep) is made from cells of
a creature; all (or most) of its cells have already
differentiated. I think there's a huge difference between
the two.
>
>>That is a guess but I don't that it's the case. Since my
>>fingerprints are changing now, the idea that DNA might
>>determine the pattern was a surprise to me; I had never
>>considered the possibility because I'm assuming that my
>>DNA hasn't changed over time.
>
>The DNA in your somatic cells (non-germ cells, i.e. just about
>everything in your body) does change; sometimes dramatically so.
Yup. I just read about the combinatorial immune response in
Science News. I've got a lot of rethinking to do.
richard....@usa.net
richard...@gecm.com wrote:
> In article <19981119203124...@ng37.aol.com>, Pooua (po...@aol.com) wrote:
> > >Subject: Re: Original Statement of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
> > >From: r...@gmrc.gecm.com (Richard Herring)
> > >Date: 11/6/98 9:01 AM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <71v2vu$ir0$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
> > >
> > >In article <71tihv$su9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, richard....@usa.net
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> All natural systems tend to disorder. This is most pronounced in isolated
> > >> systems, but even open systems will go to the maximum entropy possible. You
> > >> have yet to provide an example of any system in which the most likely state
> > >> is both more ordered and not pre-determined.
> > >
> > >Perhaps you could give a reference for the physics text where
> > >you found this definition? "Non-pre-determined order" is not a concept
> > >I am familiar with.
>
> > Some examples of pre-determined order are those normally given when someone
> > claims that order rises spontaneously in nature all the time. For example, the
> > order that comes from a substance that crystallizes is caused by the specifics
> > of the atomic or molecular attraction as it attempts to arrange itself to
> > minimum energy.
>
> I see. Couldn't you find the reference I asked for?
You asked for a reference to the definition that I gave. I had not given a
definition, but out of consideration for your request, I provided you an
explanation. If you want something else, you will need to be more specific in
your request.
> > The information for the system did not spontaneously form; it
> > is an inherent property of the atoms or molecules.
>
> No wonder you're confused. You are talking about *information*,
> not entropy. No mention of that in the 2nd Law I'm familiar with.
As I recall, all of your arguments are based on classical thermodynamics. If
you were to expose yourself to the full scope of thermodynamics, you would
find that I am speaking within that context.
> > Another example is a seed or a zygote. The rise in order after
> > fertilization is
> > nominal;
>
> > only molecules and smaller particles are described by the 2LoT.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is a new and startling revelation. Please post a reference
> to the physics text where you found it.
I was searching Alta Vista a few weeks ago, looking for the use of
Information Theory in evaluating DNA. I found Dr. Tom Schneider, a researcher
at the National Institute of Health, Laboratory of Experimental and
Computational Biology. His Web page, titled, "Molecular Information Theory
and the Theory of Molecular Machines," is very interesting, and I recommend
that people interesting in the use of thermodynamic analysis of genetic
material spend some time there: http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/
I asked Dr. Schneider (who is, btw, an evolutionist) about the argument
concerning whether the entropy of humans (or human DNA) is greater than or
equal to an equal mass of worms. His reply was,
"See http://www.secondlaw.com/ for why this question is a bit off the mark.
Basically the current state is not so important as the changes in entropy.
His point is that the entropy of coines all heads is the same as coins
randomly oriented. To get them from random to heads would require an entropy
increase. If you burned both human and an equal mass of worms, the increase
would be pretty similar since they are both made of cells."
The URL he referenced, http://www.secondlaw.com/ , explains that macroscopic
objects are not considered under thermodynamic systems; the 2nd Law does not
say anything about why a desk becomes messy or a town caught in a tornado
becomes chaotic. The 2nd Law only applies to the microscopic world of
molecules and atoms; hence Dr. Schneider's comment about the cells of humans
and worms. I vaguely recall being told a few years ago that cells are about
as big an object as thermodynamics laws of ordering would cover, if even they
would be covered. The rise in order of a biological system, so far as
thermodynamics is concerned, occurs at the cellular and sub-cellular level.
This bit of information works well in directing the focus of this discussion
where I think it should have been all along; to the sub-cellular level. It
has been my argument all along that the gross mass of the creatures is NOT a
factor in considering the thermodynamics of evolution. The genetic material,
or rather, the information contained in the genetic material, is the most
significant consideration regarding the thermodynamics of the evolution of
biological order. I would hope this would end those nonsense arguments that
trees and babies represent the same kind of rise in order that biological
evolution does.
Richard Alexander
Richard's Electronic Kingdom
http://members.aol.com/pooua
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Steven B. Harris
>> You don't need sheep. Identical twins, which are naturally cloned
>>human embryos, have different fingerprints.
>
>As far as I could tell, the cloning process for the sheep was
>different than the process that identical twins are produced.
>Human embryos are not the things that are cloned; you should
>know that.
>>
>> Steve Harris, M.D.
They are cloned naturally (by an "experiment of nature"), not
artificially (there has been some experimentation in doing it
artificially also-- as far as know this has only recently been banned).
Embryo cloning (where an a very early zygote is divided in two or more
zygotes, each of which then goes on to form an individual) has been
done with mammals for years. It should certainly be possible to do in
humans, if it hasn't already been done. The point is that it produces
the same result as cloning from an adult-- another genetically
identical copy (but not identical in actual form, since much
information is NOT in the genes).
Steven B. Harris
>The genetic clone (as in the sheep) is made from cells of
>a creature; all (or most) of its cells have already
>differentiated. I think there's a huge difference between
>the two.
Well, you can think all you want (and this is the way biologists
actually DID think, until they had examples of cloned adult mammals to
look at). But now that they have them, we can say that experiment has
produced no evidence to support your hypothesis, and in fact suggests
the opposite. Cloned adults appear to be just the same sort of thing
that is produced with cloned embryos. No obvious differences have been
noted in the outcomes of the two techniques.
Richard Herring
Very well. Let me try again.
Please post a reference to a text which discusses entropy in terms of
order, *and* makes a distinction between "pre-determined" and other
kinds of order.
> > > The information for the system did not spontaneously form; it
> > > is an inherent property of the atoms or molecules.
> >
> > No wonder you're confused. You are talking about *information*,
> > not entropy. No mention of that in the 2nd Law I'm familiar with.
> As I recall, all of your arguments are based on classical thermodynamics.
Since yours appear to be based on mis-statements of the 2nd Law in
classical thermodynamics terms, that should not surprise you.
> If
> you were to expose yourself to the full scope of thermodynamics, you would
> find that I am speaking within that context.
In that case, you will need to be more specific. But don't confuse
statistical mechanics with information theory.
> > > only molecules and smaller particles are described by the 2LoT.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > This is a new and startling revelation. Please post a reference
> > to the physics text where you found it.
> I was searching Alta Vista a few weeks ago, looking for the use of
> Information Theory in evaluating DNA. I found Dr. Tom Schneider, [...]
> I asked Dr. Schneider (who is, btw, an evolutionist) about the argument
> concerning whether the entropy of humans (or human DNA) is greater than or
> equal to an equal mass of worms. His reply was,
> "See http://www.secondlaw.com/ for why this question is a bit off the mark.
For those who haven't seen this site, it's a *qualitative* explanation
of the 2nd law, by a chemist, for chemists. He spends quite a lot
of effort demolishing the idea that entropy = disorder, and various
pseudo-scientific strawman arguments about conservation and waste.
And very strong on the fact that terrestrial life is not an isolated
system.
> The URL he referenced, http://www.secondlaw.com/, explains that macroscopic
> objects are not considered under thermodynamic systems;
No. It says that the 2nd Law doesn't describe the *order* in
systems of macroscopic objects. It doesn't say that the law doesn't
apply, just that entropy is not the same as disorder.
> the 2nd Law does not say anything about why a desk becomes messy
> or a town caught in a tornado becomes chaotic.
You're getting the point now. The 2nd Law is about entropy, which
is not the same thing as disorder.
The point he is making is that, from a statistical viewpoint,
you can only count the *accessible* microstates when determining
the entropy of a system. If there's an energy barrier, many
states are inaccessible, and macroscopic order is preserved.
But with enough available energy to get over the barriers, more
states become accessible and the most probable state is then likely
to be the most macroscopically disordered.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>