Darwinium?
TomS
When will there be an element Darwinium?
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
Ernest Major
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> writes
>I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
>When will there be an element Darwinium?
>
>
physicists. Darwin was a biologist and therefore gets species named
after him. He was also a geologist, which may be why geographical
features get named after him.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:
>I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
>When will there be an element Darwinium?
When we evolve a method to isolate it.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ron O
When biological evolution is finally found to violate the second law
of thermondynamics. Once they have to rewrite the second law the
chemists will give Darwin his due.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
> I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
> When will there be an element Darwinium?
As soon as someone called Darwin decides on a career in physics, makes
some ground breaking discoveries (ideally a new element), and dies....
:o)
Frank J
> I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
> When will there be an element Darwinium?
Yes, and it will have intelligent electrons ;-) :
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e7e04cbdee3b76f2?hl=en
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
> When will there be an element Darwinium?
They're having trouble deciding which one should be selected. The
IDevotees want to nominate Unobtainium.
John Wilkins
<7cce1d8c-bf60-431e...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 14 Mar, 18:30, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
> >
> > When will there be an element Darwinium?
>
>
> As soon as someone called Darwin decides on a career in physics, makes
> some ground breaking discoveries (ideally a new element), and dies....
> :o)
Strange Creature
Biological evolution does not violate the second law.
The second law in statistical mechanics only deals
with the probabilities of large ensembles (and is almost
never applied to systems with only one or two molecules).
More importantly, however, it deals with closed systems.
Life is not a closed system, and it needs energy in order
to operate. Entropy can be reduced in an open system,
and life on Earth is the by-product of the continuous input
of light and radiation onto the surface of the Earth for
billions of years.
If the sun had stopped shining several billion years ago,
life would have come to a grinding halt as the Earth
freezed over.
Since the Earth is not a closed system when it comes
to energy inputs, the second law of thermodynamics
does not apply to the Earth. It only applies to closed
systems. So life on Earth, can reduce in entropy
throughout time without violating the second law,
due to solar energy inputs from the Sun, which make
the Earth not a closed system when it comes to
energy.
This is covered in the Gibbs and Hemholtz Free
Energy functions.
John Vreeland
I heard that "woosh" from here.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
Ron O
He missed the part about chemist having to rewrite the second law.
Ron Okimoto
el cid
wrote:
> On Mar 14, 1:46 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 1:30 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > > I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
> > > When will there be an element Darwinium?
>
> > > --
> > > ---Tom S.
> > > Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
> > > with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
> > > The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
>
> > When biological evolution is finally found to violate the second law
> > of thermondynamics. Once they have to rewrite the second law the
> > chemists will give Darwin his due.
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Biological evolution does not violate the second law.
>
> The second law in statistical mechanics only deals
> with the probabilities of large ensembles (and is almost
> never applied to systems with only one or two molecules).
>
> More importantly, however, it deals with closed systems.
Beyond your other confusions, the second law is not specific
to closed systems. You seem to be fixating on a formulation
of the 2nd law that is specific to closed systems, perhaps
not understanding how silly it is to do so. Please consult
wiki and pay special attention to forms involving inequalities.
Strange Creature
Yes it is. The second law of thermodynamics is specifically
limited to closed systems. A negentropic reaction is a
very common reaction in physical chemistry.
It is completely allowed, because as long as there is enough
free energy to drive the reaction, energy inputs can compensate
for the entropy reduction.
This is what the concept of Free Energy, (as in the Gibbs and
Hemholtz Free Energy functions), is all about.
It is a basic concept in college Physical Chemistry, and the
equation is routinely used to say whether a reaction will
go or not go,
Saying that the second law of thermodynamics is not
specifically limited to closed systems is like saying
that an automobile is not patentable because it is
a 'perpetual motion machine'. (A perpetual motion
machine is specifically defined as one that does not
require fuel to operate. Engines can operate if they
are given fuel inputs, and if a 'perpetual motion
machine' by definition did not exclude devices that
operated with fuel input by definition, then any
machine that had an engine attached would be
a 'perpetual motion machine'. Of course, I do not
think that 'perpetual motion machines' have been
disallowed by patent, however under some
circumstances a working prototype is needed.
Anyways, there is an actual and clear difference
between a 'machine' or an 'engine' and a 'perpetual
motion machine'. They are not necessarily the
same thing.)
bpuharic
>
>More importantly, however, it deals with closed systems.
actually it deals with all systems, open, closed and isolated. but
only in isolated systems does entropy HAVE to increase for a
spontaneous reaction.
TomS
<7cce1d8c-bf60-431e...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."
>
>On 14 Mar, 18:30, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>>
>> When will there be an element Darwinium?
>
>
>As soon as someone called Darwin decides on a career in physics, makes
>some ground breaking discoveries (ideally a new element), and dies....
> :o)
Like Copernicus, Nobel, Berkeley, ... ?
Ron O
You are confusing the way in which the anti-evolution creationists use
the second law with the actual second law. For the creationist scam
argument to be viable they require a closed system. Even though they
usually leave out "in a closed system" from their propaganda, a closed
system is what their usual propaganda definition was written for. The
second law applies to open and closed systems. For open systems you
do not have the limitation on energy and mass, but entropy keeps
increasing overall.
I remember reading a creationist book "The Collapse of Evolution" and
they had the usual textbook definitions for the second law. I went to
the library and pulled out several physical chemistry textbooks and
found one book with the three definitions in the same order, format,
and about the exact wording except "in a closed system" was left out
of the definitions in the creationist text, but were included in the
definitions in the chemistry book. It was obviously done on purpose.
I've learned that, that is the typical level of honesty that you can
expect from the anti-evolution faction.
Wiki has several definition of the second law that apply to all
systems, but their first definition that they start the entry out with
is the standard one that applies to "isolated systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
el cid
Oh my, and I tried to save you the embarrassment.
deltaS >= deltaQ/T
That's one way to state the 2nd law. It is not specific to
closes systems.
The issue at hand is that any reductions in entropy need
to be paid for. Simply invoking an open system is not
enough, there needs to be enough energy.
This is not a problem for life, there's more than enough
energy at hand.
> It is completely allowed, because as long as there is enough
> free energy to drive the reaction, energy inputs can compensate
> for the entropy reduction.
>
> This is what the concept of Free Energy, (as in the Gibbs and
> Hemholtz Free Energy functions), is all about.
>
> It is a basic concept in college Physical Chemistry, and the
> equation is routinely used to say whether a reaction will
> go or not go,
>
> Saying that the second law of thermodynamics is not
> specifically limited to closed systems is like saying
> that an automobile is not patentable because it is
> a 'perpetual motion machine'.
Uh, no it isn't.
The second law of thermodynamics comes in many formulations.
I'm going to recommend an entire thread for you to read
as this has been done so many times before.
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/
ce86b265253b6436>
I'll suggest you pay close attention to the authors Gans and Parson.
Paul J Gans
>"On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT), in article
><7cce1d8c-bf60-431e...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
>stated..."
>>
>>On 14 Mar, 18:30, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>>>
>>> When will there be an element Darwinium?
>>
>>
>>As soon as someone called Darwin decides on a career in physics, makes
>>some ground breaking discoveries (ideally a new element), and dies....
>> :o)
>Like Copernicus, Nobel, Berkeley, ... ?
And George Darwin, Charlie's son?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Darwin
Or Charles Galton Darwin, Charlie's grandson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Galton_Darwin
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
I agree with Ron. One common way of stating the Second Law
is that heat will never spontaneously flow from cold to hot
without there simultaneously being other changes in the universe.
All the definitions of the Second Law, including the increase
of entropy in closed systems can be derived from each other.
And, of course, no biological violation of the Second Law has
yet been found, nor is one likely to be found.
Mark Evans
SNIP
> The second law of thermodynamics comes in many formulations.
>
I rather prefer the simple formulation of the 3 Laws which reduces
them to:
You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't quit the game.
Mark Evans
Mitchell Coffey
> I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
> When will there be an element Darwinium?
Darwinium, a rare metallic element. Once in common use, it is now
virtually unavailable. In the ancient Middle East it was known by the
name "gopher wood."
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
> "On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
> >On 14 Mar, 18:30, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
> >> When will there be an element Darwinium?
>
> >As soon as someone called Darwin decides on a career in physics, makes
> >some ground breaking discoveries (ideally a new element), and dies....
> > :o)
>
> Like Copernicus, Nobel, Berkeley, ... ?
Actually, "Berkelium" was named after the university named after Rev.
Berkeley. Since it's named after Berkeley because that's the place
where they first made the stuff, this still counts as a physics-
oriented name.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
> In article <278591455.0000cf9e.065.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, TomS
>
> <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > I see that recently element 112 has been given the name "Copernicium".
>
> > When will there be an element Darwinium?
>
> They're having trouble deciding which one should be selected. The
> IDevotees want to nominate Unobtainium.
Not going to happen. Since the right of naming of a new element goes
to the scientists who discover it, the obtaining of this right would
require that the IDers do research.
Mitchell
Kleuskes & Moos
It decays into Ignorantium with a halflife of 6 days (it seems to rest
on the 7th).
Strange Creature
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
> Ron Okimoto
> SNIP:
Apparently under the terminology used in wikipedia closed
and isolated are not synonymous. By 'closed', I meant
isolated by the definitions that they gave.
Anyway, a reaction can be thermodynamically favored
in the sense that it will be 'spontaneous' if the Free
Energy increases, but it can still have an entropy
decrease if an enthalpy or internal energy increase
can compensate. It still may not happen, however,
due to reaction kinetics.
If you are still not convinced that chemical entropy
reductions can happen in reality something like
the production of iron from iron ore or iron oxide
might be an example. (There still need to be
energy inputs into the blast furnace.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
Paul J Gans
>You can't win.
Except that the last one doesn't really correspond to the
"third law". That one is the one that says we can take
the absolute entropy of elements under certain conditions
to be zero at absolute zero.
In my opinion the best anyone has come up with is:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't even break even.
3) You have to start at zero.
Paul J Gans
>On Mar 15, 4:25 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 1:42 am, Strange Creature <strangecreatu...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 14, 11:12 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 15, 12:16 am, Strange Creature <strangecreatu...@yahoo.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 14, 1:46 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Mar 14, 1:30 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wiki has several definition of the second law that apply to all
>> systems, but their first definition that they start the entry out with
>> is the standard one that applies to "isolated systems.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
>> Ron Okimoto
>> SNIP:
>Apparently under the terminology used in wikipedia closed
>and isolated are not synonymous. By 'closed', I meant
>isolated by the definitions that they gave.
Chemists and physicists use different definitions. To
a chemist, an isolated system exchanges nothing with the
surroundings. A closed system, on the other hand, can
exchange heat and work, but the amount of material in it
stays constant. In an open system even the amount of
material can change.
To a physicist, a closed system is like the chemist's isolated
system and an open system is everything else.
>Anyway, a reaction can be thermodynamically favored
>in the sense that it will be 'spontaneous' if the Free
>Energy increases, but it can still have an entropy
>decrease if an enthalpy or internal energy increase
>can compensate. It still may not happen, however,
>due to reaction kinetics.
It isn't hard at all. The conversion of water vapor
to rain (or snow) at 31 deg. F has a negative Gibbs
free energy and a negative entropy change. And of course
it is quite spontaneous.
There are a fair number of chemical reactions in which
the entropy decreases at constant temperature and pressure,
which are the normal conditions under which we do reactions.
>If you are still not convinced that chemical entropy
>reductions can happen in reality something like
>the production of iron from iron ore or iron oxide
>might be an example. (There still need to be
>energy inputs into the blast furnace.)
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_system_(systems_theory%29
Perhaps I misunderstand you and/or Ron, but you two seem to
agree even if you use different words.
J. J. Lodder
I still prefer mine.
I You can't win.
II You cannot even play even, except when it's very cold outside.
III It never gets that cold.
since it gives the best connection between the laws.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
It was arrested on the seventh,
Jan
Paul J Gans
>I still prefer mine.
It is a good one. Better, I've not heard it before.
Kermit
> "On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:54:18 -0700 (PDT), in article
And the entire country of Poland!
Kermit
Kermit
Yeah, Ron understands that the second law isn't a problem for
evolutionary science. He's just spoofing arguments we've actually
heard from Creationists here.
Kermit
J. J. Lodder
There was a thread on it some time ago in sci.physics.research
I'll see if I can find it,
Jan
PS Also note that this formulation connects directly
with black hole thermodynamics.
A zero temp black hole directly violates both II and III
Moist Lipwig
news:e5f94553-f29c-4d50...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------
Must be new here. Doesn't know you, I think.
Regards
Roy Culley
Uncle Al in sci.physics often quotes this version:
1) First Law of Thermodynamics: You cannot win.
2) Second Law of Thermodynamics: You can only break even on a very
cold day.
3) Third Law of Thermodynamics: It never gets that cold.
He has a couple of other good ones:
1) Christ died for your sins.
2) If you do not sin, Christ died in vain.
3) Get on with it.
For those that say they have discovered a theory of everything:
Newton has c=oo, G=G, h=0
SR has c=c, G=0, h=0
GR has c=c, G=G, h=0
QFT has c=c, G=0, h=h
Excuse the poor excuse for the infinity character :-)