Second Law of Thermodynamics

32 views
Skip to first unread message

BigCaesar999

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 10:41:28 PM1/30/01
to
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 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

unread,
Jan 30, 2001, 11:23:06 PM1/30/01
to
This is an excellently written, well reasoned and thoroughly scientific
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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:06:59 AM1/31/01
to
On 30 Jan 2001 22:41:28 -0500, bigcae...@aol.com (BigCaesar999)
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.

www.trueorigin.org/..................?

Wade Hines

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 7:32:46 AM1/31/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 8:01:48 AM1/31/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 10:16:54 AM1/31/01
to
bigcae...@aol.com (BigCaesar999) wrote in
<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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 10:24:02 AM1/31/01
to
Wade Hines wrote in message <3A780562...@rcn.com>...

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 11:26:29 AM1/31/01
to

"BigCaesar999" <bigcae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010130223951...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
***********************************************************


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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 11:42:02 AM1/31/01
to
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?

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
**********************************************************

nicho...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 11:51:08 AM1/31/01
to
<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. 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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 11:52:23 AM1/31/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:09:51 PM1/31/01
to
In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:15:46 PM1/31/01
to
In article <3A78412D...@yahoo.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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:34:29 PM1/31/01
to

"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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:35:46 PM1/31/01
to
In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
"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 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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:37:48 PM1/31/01
to
nicho...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 12:48:44 PM1/31/01
to
In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
> "BigCaesar999" <bigcae...@aol.com> wrote in message
> 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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:02:15 PM1/31/01
to
Elmer Bataitis 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?

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:16:15 PM1/31/01
to

"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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:22:33 PM1/31/01
to
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.
>
> 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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:51:56 PM1/31/01
to
In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 1:52:07 PM1/31/01
to
In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
> than being seen as a point in the evolutionist-materialist-
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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 2:03:38 PM1/31/01
to
In article <EDYd6.231647$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 2:51:48 PM1/31/01
to
In article <U0Xd6.231610$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com>,
"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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 2:59:38 PM1/31/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 3:16:48 PM1/31/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 3:20:52 PM1/31/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 3:29:34 PM1/31/01
to
Mike Goodrich wrote:

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

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 5:07:30 PM1/31/01
to

Mike Goodrich <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:EDYd6.231647$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
For those who can't be bothered to read it, the above quoted post is just
another (lengthy) version of the watchmaker argument.
regards
leo


wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Jan 31, 2001, 7:54:55 PM1/31/01
to
On 31 Jan 2001 11:26:29 -0500, "Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com>
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

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 12:30:17 AM2/1/01
to

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.

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

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 12:37:53 AM2/1/01
to

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

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 6:39:10 AM2/1/01
to

"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.

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

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 6:47:18 AM2/1/01
to

"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

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 9:42:49 PM2/1/01
to

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

unread,
Feb 1, 2001, 9:44:53 PM2/1/01
to

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

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 4:55:09 PM2/2/01
to
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. 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

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 6:14:07 PM2/2/01
to
I'm not sure why Wallace or anyone else thinks evolution involves a decrease
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

unread,
Feb 2, 2001, 7:26:27 PM2/2/01
to
On 2 Feb 2001 16:55:09 -0500, bigcae...@aol.com (BigCaesar999)
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

unread,
Feb 3, 2001, 9:52:18 PM2/3/01
to

"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
> >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.
>
> 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.

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

unread,
Feb 3, 2001, 10:09:32 PM2/3/01
to

"Mike Goodrich" <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:EDYd6.231647$j6.31...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...
> I suggest you consider this:

[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

unread,
Feb 3, 2001, 11:04:54 PM2/3/01
to

"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.

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

unread,
Feb 4, 2001, 1:44:26 PM2/4/01
to
Er...@Mt.Olympus (Eros) wrote in <Us3f6.815$sS4....@ozemail.com.au>:

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

unread,
Feb 5, 2001, 8:49:14 PM2/5/01
to

<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

unread,
Feb 5, 2001, 9:47:27 PM2/5/01
to
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.

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

unread,
Feb 5, 2001, 9:57:06 PM2/5/01
to

<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!
>
[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?
> >
>


wf...@ptd.net

unread,
Feb 5, 2001, 10:03:14 PM2/5/01
to
On 5 Feb 2001 21:57:06 -0500, "Robert Dean" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>
><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

unread,
Feb 5, 2001, 10:59:17 PM2/5/01
to
Mike Goodrich <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:xKIf6.241023$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...

[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

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 5:58:05 AM2/7/01
to
On 6 Feb 2001 18:18:20 -0500, John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> 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?

<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

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 8:00:35 AM2/7/01
to

"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

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 8:26:20 AM2/7/01
to
Adam Marczyk wrote in message <95q5bp$u0s$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>...
>John Segerson <sem...@olywa.net> wrote in message
>news:3A805FB0...@olywa.net...
>>
>>
>> "R. Tang" wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <kpXf6.615$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:
>> > >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

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 9:20:30 AM2/7/01
to
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?

--
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

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 10:48:03 AM2/7/01
to
In article <PFbg6.242993$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.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

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 11:24:40 AM2/7/01
to
Mike Goodrich <tachy...@home.com> wrote in message
news:PFbg6.242993$j6.33...@news1.rdc1.va.home.com...

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

unread,
Feb 7, 2001, 12:12:03 PM2/7/01
to
^^^^^^ I presume you meant "dividing".

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("");}}