Jump to content


Photo

Entropy


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
186 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:15 PM

Evolution defies the law of entropy, as it creates order from disorder when the natural state of the world is to form disorder... Like ice melting = liquid molecules are more random (disorderly) than solids... It also signifies decay, but that can be discussed later if need be.

http://hyperphysics....erm/entrop.html



Now how does evolution jump this hurdle?

#2 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 07 March 2012 - 02:10 PM

I'm sorry but if you are going to say that "evolution" breaks the "law of entropy", then I'm going to assume that you are hinting to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the equivocation of order/disorder to gain/decrease in information which is just a bad analogy which to me doesn't make even the slightest sense.

I will grant you that macro-evolution does seem to have a power to build things and ameliorate it (according to evolution) without giving scientific laws to describe how this works but this is in no way comparable to thermodynamics and entropy.

#3 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 07 March 2012 - 02:26 PM

About how evolution jumps this hurdle: I think the answer is pretty clear: randomization and selection of the more useful information in the cell. I would think that this could actually influence the rate of useful/not useful information. The real question is ofcourse: by how much. I've seen a youtube video about how this would work on the level of cells (only cells, not larger structures) but afaik that was hypothetically speaking.

There are computer programs who mimic the algorythms of evolution (or supposed algorythms) to solve complex problems by changing and selecting the wanted results (converges to the answer to the question) so I would think that there is some merit behind those algorythms without saying that they actually are occuring in nature. Tbh I have no clue about that.

In short: I think that the scientific community has found how this COULD work, but not how it did work.

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 March 2012 - 02:39 PM

About how evolution jumps this hurdle: I think the answer is pretty clear: randomization and selection of the more useful information in the cell. I would think that this could actually influence the rate of useful/not useful information. The real question is ofcourse: by how much. I've seen a youtube video about how this would work on the level of cells (only cells, not larger structures) but afaik that was hypothetically speaking.

There are computer programs who mimic the algorythms of evolution (or supposed algorythms) to solve complex problems by changing and selecting the wanted results (converges to the answer to the question) so I would think that there is some merit behind those algorythms without saying that they actually are occuring in nature. Tbh I have no clue about that.

In short: I think that the scientific community has found how this COULD work, but not how it did work.


In regards to your first post... Did you look at the link? ( I would have quoted some parts of it, but my mouse is on the fritz and won't highlight stuff properly)

Also what is this youtube video, it is very easy to claim stuff... (I have been to the moon by the way ;) )... However it is much more creditable when someone supplies evidence for their assertions. (Hence my link)

What would these algorithms be? Considering that mutation is a RANDOM event, one would consider that there can be no mathematical algorithms or formula since it is based on an entirely random sequence of events... Furthermore selection itself is random, since it isn't just the black and white... one category situations.. Life itself is much deeper, hence something with a mutation for a longer neck may run slower or be ungainly due to the longer neck, thus is easier prey. Whereas something that can run faster may have a faster metabolism so must eat more to keep fit... Etc the list goes on.. Yet these are never accounted for.

Finally you actually haven't presented any evidence or actual mechanisms for how this hurdle is / could be dealt with, so I ask you to demonstrate them now. Thanks.

#5 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:43 PM

1/ In regards to your first post... Did you look at the link? ( I would have quoted some parts of it, but my mouse is on the fritz and won't highlight stuff properly)

2/ Also what is this youtube video, it is very easy to claim stuff... (I have been to the moon by the way ;) )... However it is much more creditable when someone supplies evidence for their assertions. (Hence my link)

3/ What would these algorithms be? Considering that mutation is a RANDOM event, one would consider that there can be no mathematical algorithms or formula since it is based on an entirely random sequence of events... Furthermore selection itself is random, since it isn't just the black and white... one category situations.. Life itself is much deeper, hence something with a mutation for a longer neck may run slower or be ungainly due to the longer neck, thus is easier prey. Whereas something that can run faster may have a faster metabolism so must eat more to keep fit... Etc the list goes on.. Yet these are never accounted for.

4/ Finally you actually haven't presented any evidence or actual mechanisms for how this hurdle is / could be dealt with, so I ask you to demonstrate them now. Thanks.


1/ Yes I have but I didn't find any link to evolution. I did see a reference to entropy and 2nd law.

2/ How was your trip? Hope you didn't get sunburn.

Here's the link, took a few minutes: (starts around 4:00). Please note that I'm not making any claims. I'm just trying to give you some answers to your question as to how evolutionists answer this question. I do not regard this video as any proof myself, just as an interesting option that kinda stuck with me. There might be some truth to it, or not.

3/ http://en.wikipedia....ary_computation I know: wikipedia but evolutionary computing is an established field (didn't know that either a (few) year(s) ago). There is a lot to learn about it and it is rather complex. Afaik it is based upon the theory of evolution and it does get results. But I'll need to do some further study to get to the bottom of it.

4/ I agree that selection isn't always a black and white process, most things in life aren't. But that's not always a problem either. Populations are allowed to evolve opposite traits within populations and go with the trial and error method (it is possible both traits survive). I tried to point you into some direction, hoping you could get an answer that would be satisfactory for you. I must say that I haven't found one yet for myself. That's the main reason that I doubt macro-evolution. I do see some merit in evolutionary computation as I said, but I also said that I'm not sure that such algorythms are really representing nature. Afaik evolutionary computing is deduced from nature and not a copy of it (otherwise we would in fact have scientific laws for evolution). On the other hand, if evolutionary computing does work, and it is deduced from the theory of evolution, then there might be a basis of truth in evolution :/ .

#6 Earthling

Earthling

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 00
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Earth

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:33 PM

Evolution defies the law of entropy, as it creates order from disorder when the natural state of the world is to form disorder...

Yes, but as I already told you... this does not necessarily apply locally within systems or to open systems. And guess what, earth is an open system.

Like ice melting = liquid molecules are more random (disorderly) than solids...

Yes, but... when it freezes, water turns into... ice. Thereby illustrating the principles that I just described to you, and, more importantly, falsifying your earlier claim that "creating order from chaos... [...] has not been demonstrated EXCEPT in the presence of an intelligent agent"

Now how does evolution jump this hurdle?

There is no hurdle.

So until you read a little bit more about thermodynamics, I consider this topic done.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:00 AM

Yes, but as I already told you... this does not necessarily apply locally within systems or to open systems. And guess what, earth is an open system.


Yes, but... when it freezes, water turns into... ice. Thereby illustrating the principles that I just described to you, and, more importantly, falsifying your earlier claim that "creating order from chaos... [...] has not been demonstrated EXCEPT in the presence of an intelligent agent"


There is no hurdle.

So until you read a little bit more about thermodynamics, I consider this topic done.

Yes, but as I already told you... this does not necessarily apply locally within systems or to open systems. And guess what, earth is an open system.


Yes, but... when it freezes, water turns into... ice. Thereby illustrating the principles that I just described to you, and, more importantly, falsifying your earlier claim that "creating order from chaos... [...] has not been demonstrated EXCEPT in the presence of an intelligent agent"


There is no hurdle.

So until you read a little bit more about thermodynamics, I consider this topic done.


The universe itself is a closed system.... Or is there some other thing outside of the universe acting on the universe ;) (God perhaps)

Now lets show how random mutations can create Order... OR will you skip this in favour of a model that has nothing to do with mutation.. (very scientific indeed)


EDIT: Lets expand this... Lets look at the beginning of life... (an event producing order from chaos).. Now how could this have occured?

It has been proposed that lightning bolts supplied the energy for the transformation... despite the fact that said lightning bolts would fry anything it created... (Very scientific indeed)

Further it has been proposed that the energy from the sun was the cause... Yet the only thing we observe from the sun is destruction, except when pre-programmed mechanisms are involved- solar panels, plant photosynthesis

#8 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:15 AM

1/ The universe itself is a closed system.... Or is there some other thing outside of the universe acting on the universe ;) (God perhaps)

2/ Now lets show how random mutations can create Order... OR will you skip this in favour of a model that has nothing to do with mutation.. (very scientific indeed)


3/ EDIT: Lets expand this... Lets look at the beginning of life... (an event producing order from chaos).. Now how could this have occured?

It has been proposed that lightning bolts supplied the energy for the transformation... despite the fact that said lightning bolts would fry anything it created... (Very scientific indeed)

Further it has been proposed that the energy from the sun was the cause... Yet the only thing we observe from the sun is destruction, except when pre-programmed mechanisms are involved- solar panels, plant photosynthesis


1/ That's not relevant unless you want to discuss thermodynamics in the universe. You need to define your systems and see whether or not they are closed or open (or isolated). If your argument is 'but the universe is a closed system', then should we consider everything as being a closed system?


2/ Let's say mutations cannot create order and entropy has to be increased or remain the same: what would be your system? How would you quantify/measure the entropy of that system? How would anything happen without usable energy injected into that system, thus making it an open system?

3/ If you are refering to the Big Bang, just google it. A lot has been said about the thermodynamcs of the universe along its way.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 March 2012 - 04:13 AM

1/ That's not relevant unless you want to discuss thermodynamics in the universe. You need to define your systems and see whether or not they are closed or open (or isolated). If your argument is 'but the universe is a closed system', then should we consider everything as being a closed system?


2/ Let's say mutations cannot create order and entropy has to be increased or remain the same: what would be your system? How would you quantify/measure the entropy of that system? How would anything happen without usable energy injected into that system, thus making it an open system?

3/ If you are refering to the Big Bang, just google it. A lot has been said about the thermodynamcs of the universe along its way.


1. It is entirely relevant since it means that in reality there actually is no such thing as an "open system" it is merely an arbitrary term to define something, whereby an influx of energy is requred to keep the system "running" (like the suns energy etc)... Not an actual principle to base statements on.

2. Well considering its about mutations you should look at DNA, and mutation... We already know that mutations cause DNA damage, (hence randomness destruction of ordered code), and we also know that there is no known process by which code can be created randomly... That pretty much wraps it up, but I was asking you guys to show how in this case order can come from disorder... Code from random mutation

3. ..... How can I be talking about the Big Bang when I am talking about the emergence of life... I even allowed the "open system" concept for you since there is the suns energy / that of the lightning bolt.

#10 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 08 March 2012 - 05:57 AM

1. It is entirely relevant since it means that in reality there actually is no such thing as an "open system" it is merely an arbitrary term to define something, whereby an influx of energy is requred to keep the system "running" (like the suns energy etc)... Not an actual principle to base statements on.

2. Well considering its about mutations you should look at DNA, and mutation... We already know that mutations cause DNA damage, (hence randomness destruction of ordered code), and we also know that there is no known process by which code can be created randomly... That pretty much wraps it up, but I was asking you guys to show how in this case order can come from disorder... Code from random mutation

3. ..... How can I be talking about the Big Bang when I am talking about the emergence of life... I even allowed the "open system" concept for you since there is the suns energy / that of the lightning bolt.


1/ Well, obviously open and closed systems are terminology used in thermodynamics, just like entropy. Due to the laws of conservation of energy, all usable energy, able to perform work, must be contained within the universe. By consequence, there must be a lot of open systems within the universe otherwise life wouldn't be possible, don't you think? If we were closed systems, we'd use our energy and die. I'm not sure what extra meaning you'd expect that an open or closed system has in thermodynamics.

2/ Thermodynamics has nothing to do with 'code' being generated. If I remember correctly you could compare it with the diffusion of different molecules within a system. The more the molecules are scattered, the higher the entropy. You can compare this with mixing two liquids together: at first they will be mostly separated (one at the bottom, one being poured in at the top), after a while they will mix so that the ratio of both is evenly devided within the system (max entropy). If you add heat, it is for instance possible that the property of one liquid make it rise to the top (more volatile), decreasing the entropy.

While entropy is used to quantify order/disorder and provides information about the system, if is not the same as a quantification for 'code' (information). Your example hints towards information theory which also deals with entropy (but gives it a different meaning, much like your first link provided with the 'multiplicity' example of the two dice throwing a seven).

3/ Sorry misread what you wrote. I don't know how life emerged. I do know that chemical reactions can have 'strange' results under different conditions of temperatures and pressures and I think abiogenesis is an interesting field of study but I don't expect to much from it (well that's a lie, I expect that we learn a lot from the study but I do not expect that they'll be able to create life).

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 March 2012 - 07:14 AM

1/ Well, obviously open and closed systems are terminology used in thermodynamics, just like entropy. Due to the laws of conservation of energy, all usable energy, able to perform work, must be contained within the universe. By consequence, there must be a lot of open systems within the universe otherwise life wouldn't be possible, don't you think? If we were closed systems, we'd use our energy and die. I'm not sure what extra meaning you'd expect that an open or closed system has in thermodynamics.

2/ Thermodynamics has nothing to do with 'code' being generated. If I remember correctly you could compare it with the diffusion of different molecules within a system. The more the molecules are scattered, the higher the entropy. You can compare this with mixing two liquids together: at first they will be mostly separated (one at the bottom, one being poured in at the top), after a while they will mix so that the ratio of both is evenly devided within the system (max entropy). If you add heat, it is for instance possible that the property of one liquid make it rise to the top (more volatile), decreasing the entropy.

While entropy is used to quantify order/disorder and provides information about the system, if is not the same as a quantification for 'code' (information). Your example hints towards information theory which also deals with entropy (but gives it a different meaning, much like your first link provided with the 'multiplicity' example of the two dice throwing a seven).

3/ Sorry misread what you wrote. I don't know how life emerged. I do know that chemical reactions can have 'strange' results under different conditions of temperatures and pressures and I think abiogenesis is an interesting field of study but I don't expect to much from it (well that's a lie, I expect that we learn a lot from the study but I do not expect that they'll be able to create life).


1. Yes life is an "open system" as I said before.. However in the grand scheme of things we live in a closed system. So your claims that entropy doesn't apply because X is an open system do not work since we are always living within a closed system. Yes the earth itself is defined as an open system... However as I mentioned before about life's first being how does raw random energy (like from the sun) create order... When normally unharnessed by intelligence it creates disorder... (As I mentioned before solar panels and photosynthesis harness the power of the sun)

2. It does in the context of chaos and order. DNA code is a form of order, whereas jumbled DNA (what we see after multiple mutations) is chaos. It is the same principle, just applied to a different sphere...

Here is an experiment you can do. Get a sentence and input random letters / number / spaces / fullstops / commas into it, also spend some time deleting random letters etc... I guarantee you if you did it 100% randomly you will get a jumbled mess of words. This is entropy, (randomness) in action.

Now the same would apply for the random mutations, as I said we still do not know of a mechanism that creates new information via random mutations, so my experiment is just a supporting piece of this claim.

3. No problem.

However if you do not think that scientists with their combined brain power can ever create life themselves, then what makes you sure that life could occur with no intelligence. Surely if no intelligence could cause it, then someone even with moderate intelligence could do a much better job ;)

#12 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 March 2012 - 07:22 AM

If you consider the earth to be a cup of coffee, the sun to be a microwave, and the universe to be a room.

I microwave the cup of coffee, set it down on the table, and it slowly loses heat which can never be recovered. The earth radiates heat in this same way, out into the universe. I don't see how your argument of the earth being an open system prevents it from being beholden to the second law of thermodynamics. If the existence of an open system creates an exception to the second law of thermodynamics then it should be explicitly stated what that exception is that causes the second law to no longer apply by the person making the claim.

#13 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:58 AM

@ gilbo, I'm going to stop replying untill I know what makes you think you can easily extrapolate terminology and laws of thermodynamics, which has to do with heat and energy, towards genetics because I feel like we aren't discussing the same science here.

" DNA code is a form of order, whereas jumbled DNA (what we see after multiple mutations) is chaos."

Neither definition of entropy I know of (thermodynamics or information theory) agrees with this. The first is a quantification that has to do with probability and doesn't care about information (where your example defenately does), and entropy in information theory doesn't agree with that statement either because it is about predictability of all information (useful or not).


"Here is an experiment you can do. Get a sentence and input random letters / number / spaces / fullstops / commas into it, also spend some time deleting random letters etc... I guarantee you if you did it 100% randomly you will get a jumbled mess of words. This is entropy, (randomness) in action."

Sorry but I disagree with this. Do you have any definition of entropy that you can provide that agrees with this example?

"However if you do not think that scientists with their combined brain power can ever create life themselves, then what makes you sure that life could occur with no intelligence. Surely if no intelligence could cause it, then someone even with moderate intelligence could do a much better job ;)"

I don't believe scientists will be able to do so in the near future because I do not think we have enough technology or knowledge. If you look at the curve of knowledge and technology we gained over the past 100 years, then I do have high hopes that we might unlock the secret of life one day though. We might find that it is remarkably simple and easy but needs resources that we cannot control (much like travelling at the speed of light, it's possible but even with our intelligence, we are unable to do so). On the other hand the intelligence path, poses a circular problem with increasing complexity. Heck, if we ever find out, I'll be long dead was what I actually meant by what I wrote.

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 March 2012 - 03:27 PM

1. @ gilbo, I'm going to stop replying untill I know what makes you think you can easily extrapolate terminology and laws of thermodynamics, which has to do with heat and energy, towards genetics because I feel like we aren't discussing the same science here.


2. Neither definition of entropy I know of (thermodynamics or information theory) agrees with this. The first is a quantification that has to do with probability and doesn't care about information (where your example defenately does), and entropy in information theory doesn't agree with that statement either because it is about predictability of all information (useful or not).


3. Sorry but I disagree with this. Do you have any definition of entropy that you can provide that agrees with this example?



4. I don't believe scientists will be able to do so in the near future because I do not think we have enough technology or knowledge. If you look at the curve of knowledge and technology we gained over the past 100 years, then I do have high hopes that we might unlock the secret of life one day though. We might find that it is remarkably simple and easy but needs resources that we cannot control (much like travelling at the speed of light, it's possible but even with our intelligence, we are unable to do so). On the other hand the intelligence path, poses a circular problem with increasing complexity. Heck, if we ever find out, I'll be long dead was what I actually meant by what I wrote.


1. As I said entropy applies to order and chaos, not just energy and heat as you claim. I suggest you do a bit of research since these sources vindicate my position

http://chemed.chem.w...sorder-988.html
http://dictionary.re.../browse/entropy (note- 1b)


2. Did I say it was solely about useful information? The information theory one doesn't fit due to the events requiring probability, random mutations have no probability hence cannot be defined in this way... Yet as I have already shown there is a definition of entropy that does suit what I am claiming hence this is all an aside.

3. Read point 1

4. Firstly I hope you realise that you're making an appeal to the argumentum ad futuris, (wishful thinking). Secondly traveling at the speed of light would not be something that can be ascertained inside an ocean (or "small warm pond"), let alone naturally without intelligence... Hence your claim is very much an unsupported one.

Further you haven't addressed the situation of logic. If no intelligence can create life, (with just the basics at its disposal), then surely moderate intelligence can do the same with much more resources available.... The only logical conclusion from this is that life was designed by a higher intelligence than ourselves, hence why we cannot re-create it.

#15 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 08 March 2012 - 05:01 PM

1. As I said entropy applies to order and chaos, not just energy and heat as you claim. I suggest you do a bit of research since these sources vindicate my position

http://chemed.chem.w...sorder-988.html
http://dictionary.re.../browse/entropy (note- 1b)


2. Did I say it was solely about useful information? The information theory one doesn't fit due to the events requiring probability, random mutations have no probability hence cannot be defined in this way... Yet as I have already shown there is a definition of entropy that does suit what I am claiming hence this is all an aside.

3. Read point 1

4. Firstly I hope you realise that you're making an appeal to the argumentum ad futuris, (wishful thinking). Secondly traveling at the speed of light would not be something that can be ascertained inside an ocean (or "small warm pond"), let alone naturally without intelligence... Hence your claim is very much an unsupported one.

Further you haven't addressed the situation of logic. If no intelligence can create life, (with just the basics at its disposal), then surely moderate intelligence can do the same with much more resources available.... The only logical conclusion from this is that life was designed by a higher intelligence than ourselves, hence why we cannot re-create it.


1/ I have said that thermodynamic terminology and laws have to do with heat and energy. Your link doesn't disprove this at all. In fact, it says:

"The entropy of a substance depends on two things: first, the state of a substance—its temperature, pressure, and amount; and second, how the substance is structured at the molecular level. We will discuss how state properties affect entropy first."

The link you provided is an explanation of spnataneous reactions in chemistry, which occur without needing a push. This is very much a thermodynamical process.

If we do take a look at what is meant by the structure at molecular level we get this: "There are two aspects of the molecular structure of a substance which affect the value of its entropy: (1) The degree to which the movement of the atoms and molecules in the structure is restricted—the less restricted this movement, the greater the entropy. (2) The mass of the atoms and molecules which are moving—the greater the mass, the larger the entropy."

All of this are textbook definitions from the field of thermodynamics.

They continue to say that: "A very useful, though somewhat rough, description of the entropy of a substance is as a measure of the randomness or disorder of the atoms and molecules which constitute that substance..."

"...There is nothing in our intuition about order, for example, which suggests that 1 mol Xe gas is more disordered than 1 mol He gas, even though its entropy is in fact larger."

Can you please explain to me how this applies at all to your experiment with words from earlier today?
And still you haven't answered my main question: if evolution does violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then please show me what the closed system is and how you define the entropy in that system and how evolution violates the law by decreasing the entropy of the system.

2/ Well you do seem to equate order with non-jumbled DNA and sentences that aren't random but readable.
And no you haven't: that definition sole purpose is to get a better insight, a better feel of what entropy represents, as the technical definition I quoted above might be a bit elusive. Heck, they even say that it is a somewhat rough description and it comes with a clear warning:

"There are limits to the lengths one can take this order-disorder approach to entropy"

4/ If it wasn't clear: those are my thoughts on the subject. I never intended them to be well-founded arguments.
I said that we couldn't travel at the speed of light, despite our intelligence because it would require way more energy than we can gather to name one thing. So my point is that even if we figure how to create life, that might not guarantee that we can actually do it.

"Further you haven't addressed the situation of logic. If no intelligence can create life, (with just the basics at its disposal), then surely moderate intelligence can do the same with much more resources available.... The only logical conclusion from this is that life was designed by a higher intelligence than ourselves, hence why we cannot re-create it."

Intelligence is always coupled to an entity. If the resources both entities control differ, then intelligence isn't the only factor to take into account. If both entities have equal resource then I agree that the only with higher intelligence should be able to do the same and more as the one with less intelligence. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I tried to say that intelligence might not be the only factor to consider.

#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 March 2012 - 06:38 PM

1/ I have said that thermodynamic terminology and laws have to do with heat and energy. Your link doesn't disprove this at all. In fact, it says:

"The entropy of a substance depends on two things: first, the state of a substance—its temperature, pressure, and amount; and second, how the substance is structured at the molecular level. We will discuss how state properties affect entropy first."

The link you provided is an explanation of spnataneous reactions in chemistry, which occur without needing a push. This is very much a thermodynamical process.

If we do take a look at what is meant by the structure at molecular level we get this: "There are two aspects of the molecular structure of a substance which affect the value of its entropy: (1) The degree to which the movement of the atoms and molecules in the structure is restricted—the less restricted this movement, the greater the entropy. (2) The mass of the atoms and molecules which are moving—the greater the mass, the larger the entropy."

All of this are textbook definitions from the field of thermodynamics.

They continue to say that: "A very useful, though somewhat rough, description of the entropy of a substance is as a measure of the randomness or disorder of the atoms and molecules which constitute that substance..."

"...There is nothing in our intuition about order, for example, which suggests that 1 mol Xe gas is more disordered than 1 mol He gas, even though its entropy is in fact larger."

Can you please explain to me how this applies at all to your experiment with words from earlier today?
And still you haven't answered my main question: if evolution does violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then please show me what the closed system is and how you define the entropy in that system and how evolution violates the law by decreasing the entropy of the system.

2/ Well you do seem to equate order with non-jumbled DNA and sentences that aren't random but readable.
And no you haven't: that definition sole purpose is to get a better insight, a better feel of what entropy represents, as the technical definition I quoted above might be a bit elusive. Heck, they even say that it is a somewhat rough description and it comes with a clear warning:

"There are limits to the lengths one can take this order-disorder approach to entropy"

4/ If it wasn't clear: those are my thoughts on the subject. I never intended them to be well-founded arguments.
I said that we couldn't travel at the speed of light, despite our intelligence because it would require way more energy than we can gather to name one thing. So my point is that even if we figure how to create life, that might not guarantee that we can actually do it.

"Further you haven't addressed the situation of logic. If no intelligence can create life, (with just the basics at its disposal), then surely moderate intelligence can do the same with much more resources available.... The only logical conclusion from this is that life was designed by a higher intelligence than ourselves, hence why we cannot re-create it."

Intelligence is always coupled to an entity. If the resources both entities control differ, then intelligence isn't the only factor to take into account. If both entities have equal resource then I agree that the only with higher intelligence should be able to do the same and more as the one with less intelligence. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I tried to say that intelligence might not be the only factor to consider.


Once again you have taken me out of context.. I NEVER said that thermodynamics didn't deal with heat and energy. I merely stated that there is more to the concept of entropy than JUST heat and energy.

I already addressed your main question, I suggest you read, read and re-read my posts, (since this accusation of yours is coming to be a common theme). Point 2 of post #11

I'll condense it-

DNA code = Order
Random mutations = Chaos

(This part I assumed you would understand on your own knowledge of evolution, I guess I was wrong)... Evolution claims new genetic code to code for the new limbs / organs / systems required to become a different species / kind... Hence evolution is claimed to be creating Order, (DNA code). An added complexity is that it supposedly does this via random mutations which would cause Chaos not Order...

The explanation for the experiment was already given, I suggest you re-read it... However it demonstrates that random mutations only ever cause Chaos, (a jumbled mix of random letters)... Rather than the Order, evolutionists claim.


And your point, we don't even know how as it is, so I don't even see why you are saying this.

Intelligence isn't always coupled to an entity... Does a cell have "intelligence"? (Its parts display the mark of design, but that doesn't mean the cell has intelligence. Intelligence isn't the only factor, yet in all factors scientists have a leg up on nature..

Scientists have intelligence - Nature has no intelligence
Scientists can direct their efforts - Nature has no direction
Scientists have technology - Nature has none
Scientists have more resources, ( can concentrate resources) - Nature cannot
Scientists can bend natural laws / nature - Nature cannot
Scientists have resources that are outside the sphere of what would have been natural at the time - Nature doesn't

I am sure I have missed some. Now tell me if scientists cannot create life, why in the world does anyone think it is logical to assume that life popped into existence of its own accord or by nature, considering the countdown I mentioned above.

#17 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:56 PM

Once again you have taken me out of context.. I NEVER said that thermodynamics didn't deal with heat and energy. I merely stated that there is more to the concept of entropy than JUST heat and energy.

I already addressed your main question, I suggest you read, read and re-read my posts, (since this accusation of yours is coming to be a common theme). Point 2 of post #11

I'll condense it-

DNA code = Order
Random mutations = Chaos

(This part I assumed you would understand on your own knowledge of evolution, I guess I was wrong)... Evolution claims new genetic code to code for the new limbs / organs / systems required to become a different species / kind... Hence evolution is claimed to be creating Order, (DNA code). An added complexity is that it supposedly does this via random mutations which would cause Chaos not Order...

The explanation for the experiment was already given, I suggest you re-read it... However it demonstrates that random mutations only ever cause Chaos, (a jumbled mix of random letters)... Rather than the Order, evolutionists claim.


And your point, we don't even know how as it is, so I don't even see why you are saying this.

Intelligence isn't always coupled to an entity... Does a cell have "intelligence"? (Its parts display the mark of design, but that doesn't mean the cell has intelligence. Intelligence isn't the only factor, yet in all factors scientists have a leg up on nature..

Scientists have intelligence - Nature has no intelligence
Scientists can direct their efforts - Nature has no direction
Scientists have technology - Nature has none
Scientists have more resources, ( can concentrate resources) - Nature cannot
Scientists can bend natural laws / nature - Nature cannot
Scientists have resources that are outside the sphere of what would have been natural at the time - Nature doesn't

I am sure I have missed some. Now tell me if scientists cannot create life, why in the world does anyone think it is logical to assume that life popped into existence of its own accord or by nature, considering the countdown I mentioned above.


Because exist this systems called abiogenesis , natural selection , mutuation I am software designer even the most simple system It must be created I ahve no idea how those systems appeared in first place I want to see the documentation of those systems the engineer behind those is really smart...........................you understand my point?

#18 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 09 March 2012 - 05:42 AM

Gilbo, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "Your link doesn't disprove this at all." (which is understandable, I should have specified what I meant) I made the claim that entropy, open system, closed system and laws of thermodynamics are only valid in the field of thermodynamics while you claim it is valid outside of it (in evolution (biology/genetics)). Because your main point is that evolution defies the 2nd law, I asked you why you think that extrapolation towards biology/genetics is valid, or that you provided me with a link towards the science that you are using. You provided me with definitions in the field of chemics, in the light of chemical reactions, which are thermodynamical processes. That's why I said that your definitions do not disprove my statement.

The main claim is that : "Evolution defies the law of entropy"

Yes, entropy is more than just heat and energy, it also has to do with the atomic structure.

I agree that random mutations do in fact degrade DNA and if that would be the only factor to evolution, the theory would be dead in the water. I think you know very well that this isn't the case. I provided you the field of evolutionary computing to allow you to see how you can create 'order' from randomness. The mutations make sure that the pool of possible outcomes will increase while selection will create the "order" to put it simple.

#19 Chris

Chris

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:My trade is whatever pays the bills. My real passion, and what I hope to make my living from someday, is old-time carpentry. Felling trees, hewing logs with a broad-axe, and building or restoring log structures in the Piney Woods.
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Mississippi

Posted 09 March 2012 - 06:11 AM

Makes sense, Gerson. I worked as a programmer for a few years (albeit a very junior one), and every piece of code we wrote had to be painstakingly debugged, tested, and re-tested before we'd ever attempt to let it stand alone. Even then, every line of every module had to perform its function perfectly before any part of the system could take a step forward.

Mutations are akin to the random effects created by integrating several disparate systems. It's incredibly rare that two systems produce any sort of beneficial mutation. Generally they just snarl and clank, display a thousand error messages, and politely inform you they aren't suited for the purpose.

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 March 2012 - 03:17 PM

Gilbo, I think you misunderstood what I meant by "Your link doesn't disprove this at all." (which is understandable, I should have specified what I meant) I made the claim that entropy, open system, closed system and laws of thermodynamics are only valid in the field of thermodynamics while you claim it is valid outside of it (in evolution (biology/genetics)). Because your main point is that evolution defies the 2nd law, I asked you why you think that extrapolation towards biology/genetics is valid, or that you provided me with a link towards the science that you are using. You provided me with definitions in the field of chemics, in the light of chemical reactions, which are thermodynamical processes. That's why I said that your definitions do not disprove my statement.

The main claim is that : "Evolution defies the law of entropy"

Yes, entropy is more than just heat and energy, it also has to do with the atomic structure.

I agree that random mutations do in fact degrade DNA and if that would be the only factor to evolution, the theory would be dead in the water. I think you know very well that this isn't the case. I provided you the field of evolutionary computing to allow you to see how you can create 'order' from randomness. The mutations make sure that the pool of possible outcomes will increase while selection will create the "order" to put it simple.


You do have a point that thermodynamics technically doesn't cover genetics /DNA, however what I am referring to is self evident as you agreed.


One thing you must realize about "evolutionary algorithms / computing" has very little to do with evolution, in its strictest sense. Random mutations are random and thus cannot provide any form of mathematical formula, if there is a formula then the "random" mutations are not random which therefore means they are directed.... Directed by what....

If the formulas are about diversity then it is merely computational ecology- which itself has little to do with evolution

I also showed how selection is also random- (it isn't black or white as the evolutionist portrays it, Life itself is random)... Honestly as I studied this at uni last year, the lecturers were hinting that there must be something else that does the selecting since we are now finding that "natural selection" is not a very powerful selecting agent..

So... You have two choices

1- Admit that "evolutionary computing" has very little in the sense of evolution just due to the fact that random mutations are random
2- Admit that mutations are directed which therefore implies purpose- which defies the naturalist's worldview since if there is purpose then there is a purpose giver.


Further you haven't addressed my question as to the sheer lunacy of people believing that life can form naturally despite human ingenuity cannot accomplish what a mindless, (apparently) natural process did.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users