Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
deadlock

The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

Recommended Posts

Ref: #371

Posted 06 April 2015 - 12:03 AM

Calypsis4, on 04 Apr 2015 - 11:38 AM, said:

driewerf:

  

 

No, it does not. Quite to the contrary the very first statement made there is: "Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force."

 

  

That statement is really, really dumb. Entropy is a FORCE....that exists whether it is measured by human beings or not.

Two very simple questions:

what are the units of force?

What are the units of entropy?

 

Tweeeeet! The ref holds up driewerf’s hand in victory.

 

I used to know the answer to both questions.

 

The metric units for force are Newtons.

 

Unfortunately, I forgot the answer to the second (I really hate that!) But there is this really cool new invention called the internet. And there are some dumb and evil people on there called Wikipedia. And even they got this one right. Units for entropy are Joules per Kelvin.

 

So, Calvsis got it wrong (it’s like shooting ducks in a pond!). Entropy is not a force. It is measure of “disorderâ€.

 

Leonard Susskind says it is a measure of information as he relates it to string theory and black holes. I certainly forgot that one. However, I’m confident Calvsis can clear that one up for me cause he was a “science teacher† :^)

 

As much as I hate to throw Calvsis a grain of salt (he never sends me any  :^( there was one philosopher who related entropy of a system to the “will†or “intentionality†of the system to reach a certain state. I think one can find him if one is interested by searching on “The Giants of Philosophy: Arthur Schopenhauer - Audiobook†on YouTube. I provided this in the spirit of sharing. It is not required to understand my point.

 

This presentation was put in a cohesive way with a fair degree of understanding. And that demonstrated a much better understanding than Calvsis’ presentation. But to give Calvsis his due grain of salt, entropy can seen to rather loosely relate to what one might term a philosophic definition of force or a “compunction†to get to a particular place or state. This is not to be confused with a teleological “purposeâ€. But there has been a certain “will†proposed by philosophers for the caterpillar to survive or a galaxy to hang together.

 

In the same way, one could anthropomorphize nature and say that it has a “will†or an intentionality to respond to a changing environment in an arms race of continually evolving assemblies of molecules we call organisms.

 

To understand this usage of the term “intentionalityâ€, one could also listen to John Searle, Philosopher, UC Berkley. This just shows how philosophers can make a simple thing made up by scientists into something more complicated. But more seriously, philosophers help scientists by asking the questions that need to be answered.

 

So, when one looks at the philosophic point of view, Calvsis’ quotation could be supported.

 

"Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force."

 

He’s probably going to bite my head off, but I really gave him more than a grain of salt. I threw him a decent and chewy bone. (Good dog, good dog.)

 

Nice job driewerf. I still have your hand raised in victory. You exhibit a scientific command.

 

So now that we have done all this “word smithingâ€, does anyone remember what they were fighting about? It really does help to work out the terms. Otherwise, there is no communication.

 

And I would say that it should be considered “out of bounds†for the creation apologists to take scientifically defined terms redefine them in their own ways to further their own arguments. It’s a thread on thermo and everybody should have a real good handle on what “entropy†means after twenty pages of this jazz, with all due respect to the book of Romans.

 

Hopefully everyone also knows what an “adiabatic†system is. Nobody uses it anywhere on the entire thread. Hopefully it was referred to using some other “layman friendly†term.

 

Again, because of that word, the 2nd Law does not apply folks. You cannot use it to disprove evolution. Sheez, people around here need to take some general science courses. And I don’t mean driewerf.

 

I remember when I was a shiny new Christian, born again… the second time… and I was listening to what was then contemporary gospel music. One of my favorite songs was, “They Will Know Us By Our Loveâ€. Calvsis, I’m not seeing the love!  :^)

 

Says the man who turned his back on the greatest love of all, the love of God for sinners in the person of Jesus Christ. The truth is that you are a Judas Iscariot.

 

I took a peek after signing off a few days ago and I saw this stuff and I will not let it go unanswered.

 

That fact that you think adiabatic processes negate the entropic degeneration of open systems shows how little you know about the subject. It serves as proof that you only take in those things you agree with but when your evolutionist experts say things you don't like you just ignore it...but you know, all of the skeptics here are just as guilty on that point.

 

Well, ignore this quote: " The second law of thermodynamics observes that a natural process of transfer of energy as work, always consists at least of isochoric work and often both of these extreme kinds of work. Every natural process, adiabatic or not, is irreversible, with Î”S > 0, as friction or viscosity are always present to some extent." (Wikipedia)

 

That is precisely why every system wears down, breaks down, degenerates, deteriorates, and/or dissipates. There are no exceptions. But if you think you can find an exception in the real world then state one. 

 

Secondly, the tendency of entropy degeneration is such that nature cannot generate life from non-living matter; again, if you disagree then give us even a single exception. Thirdly, The 1st Law tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So if you differ with that law then give us an example of matter (mass that lasts). (hint: don't hold your breath while looking). 

 

Had you paid attention to details before you started your attack on yours truly: (Calypsis4....not Calvsis) then you would have known that I signed off because by paying so much attention to you and trying to give detailed answers to your boring, lengthy, and shallow thinking posts I neglected a duty that caused a problem for me. That won't happen again.

 

Bonedigger referred to you as a vacuous blowhard; well, that's worse than anything I called you yet when you returned to EFF who do you attack right off the bat? Our moderator? Oh, of course not.  But this (yet another) bit of fluff you laid out is another example of that vacuous blow. 

 

You may reply but I am signing off and won't be answering. I've got much more important work to do than to try to reason with someone who has turned his brain off to God's truth.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

svigil777, on 09 Apr 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:snapback.png

Ref: #371

Posted 06 April 2015 - 12:03 AM

Calypsis4, on 04 Apr 2015 - 11:38 AM, said:

driewerf:
  

 

Again, because of that word "adiabatic", the 2nd Law does not apply folks. You cannot use it to disprove evolution. Sheez, people around here need to take some general science courses. And I don’t mean driewerf.

 

 

 

The Second Law can disprove evolution.   The molecules in life are unstable thermodynamically.  What keeps these molecules stable are things like metabolisms, cell walls and other molecular machinery.  Without working hardware these molecules decompose into smaller unstable molecules. 

 

So please tell outline any chemical reaction sequence that will produce a stable metabolism, which is what makes cells thermodynamiclly stable (simplistically).  Or do what evolutionist do, assume life (abiogenesis) and all life's machinery than state the second law is unimportant.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

svigil777, on 09 Apr 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:snapback.png

 

The Second Law can disprove evolution.

Calypsis' disagrees. He gave a long list of science sources in post nr 368. I skaed him if these are reliable in post nr 369, and he confirmed so in post nr 370. So, per post nr 370, and with Calypsis4's approval:

 

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

 

 

 

Sometimes people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is not the case; we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

svigil777, on 09 Apr 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:snapback.png

 

The Second Law can disprove evolution.

 

 

You guys just don't get it. This is not a law like congress where you go to jail if you break it. It is an "empirical finding". It's a law that we think we've found until we find an exception. And if we do, then the law needs to be adjusted, augmented or thrown out. But in this case, the law doesn't apply. It's as though you're trying to apply Iranian traffic laws to the US or the UK. A woman may drive in the West. Iranian law simply doesn't apply.

 

I am saying, the second law does not apply. You cannot use it to support the argument against evolution.

 

Here's one form of the 2nd law.

In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically enclosed system there are states inaccessible from S.[33]

 

It's a fascinating statement. The way I read that, evolution doesn't seem precluded. But again, it doesn't apply, so it's mute.

 

I am so impressed by the Wiki on this, wow! There is more here than I certainly learned in physics and chemistry. I hope everybody reads this whole page!

 

The way I remember it from chemistry was something like,

 

The entropy, S, of the system is increasing...

 

And that does make it sound like evolution is false. My naive interpretation of that as "The randomness is increasing".

 

But you have to tack on the final part.

 

... in an adiabatic system.

 

then, that kills the applicability. But note that the law just talks about the net entropy. It does not preclude pockets of order occurring in some isolated place. And that would have to be true if the universe is an adiabatic system. In that case, Earth would be one of those pockets of order, fed by a sun that is dying but not yet dead. Of course, when the sun dies, so will the life. So, the net effect will be disorder.

 

Again, this is an "empirical finding". This isn't dogma. It wasn't written on Moses' tablets. Even if it did say evolution couldn't happen, if we found that evolution indeed occurred, then the "law" would be thrown out.

 

The quote above is Bruce's, BTW, and it is false. I want to laugh. Theists love science if it supports their religion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1st Law tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

 

E = mc2

 

Did anyone tell you about the bomb? Mass can be converted to energy. You quoted the law incorrectly.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

 

See Wiki ref

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calypsis' disagrees. He gave a long list of science sources in post nr 368. I skaed him if these are reliable in post nr 369, and he confirmed so in post nr 370. So, per post nr 370, and with Calypsis4's approval:

 

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

 

 

 
 
Sometimes people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is not the case; we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law. 

 

 

 

Hi Driewef,

 

I have been having a hard time following what you and Calypsis4 were debating.  It sounded like  :gilligan:  to me or  :silly_fight: .  Sorry.

 

The quote you provided is true -there is nothing in this universe that violates the SLOT.  Maybe God is the exception, who knows.

 

I hope you are not saying because we live in an open system that evolution is possible, that the SLOT is not relevant.  If so please show me how chemically anything evolves.  Remember all chemical reactions are governed by entropy (Keq). 

 

Here is one of the most famous Chemist asking how the chemistry of evolution works.  See video link below

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys just don't get it. This is not a law like congress where you go to jail if you break it. It is an "empirical finding". It's a law that we think we've found until we find an exception. And if we do, then the law needs to be adjusted, augmented or thrown out. But in this case, the law doesn't apply. It's as though you're trying to apply Iranian traffic laws to the US or the UK. A woman may drive in the West. Iranian law simply doesn't apply.

 

1. I am saying, the second law does not apply. You cannot use it to support the argument against evolution.

 

2. Here's one form of the 2nd law.

In every neighborhood of any state S of an adiabatically enclosed system there are states inaccessible from S.[33]

 

It's a fascinating statement. The way I read that, evolution doesn't seem precluded. But again, it doesn't apply, so it's mute.

 

I am so impressed by the Wiki on this, wow! There is more here than I certainly learned in physics and chemistry. I hope everybody reads this whole page!

 

The way I remember it from chemistry was something like,

 

The entropy, S, of the system is increasing...

 

And that does make it sound like evolution is false. My naive interpretation of that as "The randomness is increasing".

 

But you have to tack on the final part.

 

... in an adiabatic system.

 

3 then, that kills the applicability. But note that the law just talks about the net entropy. It does not preclude pockets of order occurring in some isolated place. And that would have to be true if the universe is an adiabatic system. In that case, Earth would be one of those pockets of order, fed by a sun that is dying but not yet dead. Of course, when the sun dies, so will the life. So, the net effect will be disorder.

 

Again, this is an "empirical finding". This isn't dogma. It wasn't written on Moses' tablets. Even if it did say evolution couldn't happen, if we found that evolution indeed occurred, then the "law" would be thrown out.

 

The quote above is Bruce's, BTW, and it is false. I want to laugh. Theists love science if it supports their religion!

 

 I numbered you text above and using that number below to as reference. 

 

1.  I really don't get it.  Are you saying the SLOT doesn't apply?  My gut reaction is this is crazy, but maybe I don't understand.  Isn't life governed by biochemistry which is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics?

 

2.  Are you saying life is in a adiabatic system?  My experience with adiabatic reactors is that they are designed to be adiabatic.  Again, I am sorry, will you help me understand you argument.  I am sorry if I am being obtuse, it is not my intent.

 

3.  There is some truth to what you say. Base upon Maxwell Boltzmen there can be pockets of order.  But there is limit of what the heat from a sun can do.  If the energy from the sun is directed (photosynthesis, metabolisms) than a lot can be done.  But that requires designed molecular machines.  Image you have a car.  You can poor gasoline all over the car and light it.  The car burns up and doesn't move which is undirected energy does.  But if you put the same gas into a gas tank connected to a designed engine, that same car does amazing things.  The same is true with life.  You use directed energy created by say photosynthesis, and it used in the designed machinery in life, and it does amazing things.  Once this designed machinery stops working (death) then the same living molecules  decomposes based upon the SLOT.  And the undirected energy, say from the sun, just makes things decomposition faster (exponentially), again based upon the SLOT.  The point is that on open system, via the sun, does not solve the SLOT problem for evolutionist, it makes it much worse, becasue large molecules from AA's, (not stone, polymers or crystals) are exponentially less stable the more heat you add to the system.

 

Here is a test.  Get a pool of Amino Acids and heat them up and see what happens: 1) put them in a pool of water as test one; 2) put them in anaerobic conditions test 2 and then 3) put them in an aerobic conditions as test 3.  Did the molecules grow and evolve into life,  or did they decompose into smaller molecules.   The point is we can talk hypotheticals of SLOT but the real proof is in the pudding, the sun is limited on what it can do to chemical reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I numbered you text above and using that number below to as reference. 

 

1.  I really don't get it.  Are you saying the SLOT doesn't apply?  My gut reaction is this is crazy, but maybe I don't understand.  Isn't life governed by biochemistry which is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics?

Then all you need do is show just one of those biochemical reactions violates any law of chemistry or physics.  Just one and it's game-over for evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1.  I really don't get it.  Are you saying the SLOT doesn't apply?  My gut reaction is this is crazy, but maybe I don't understand.  Isn't life governed by biochemistry which is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics?

 

2.  Are you saying life is in a adiabatic system?  My experience with adiabatic reactors is that they are designed to be adiabatic.  Again, I am sorry, will you help me understand you argument.  I am sorry if I am being obtuse, it is not my intent.

 

 

2. As I see it, his point is the opposite; Life is NOT an adiabatic system, therefore 2LOT do NOT apply. I don’t think that the statement that 2LOT only applies to closed, or isolated, systems is something new in this discussion, although the term “adiabatic†might be. 

 

 

 You use directed energy created by say photosynthesis, and it used in the designed machinery in life, and it does amazing things.  Once this designed machinery stops working (death) then the same living molecules  decomposes based upon the SLOT.  And the undirected energy, say from the sun, just makes things decomposition faster (exponentially), again based upon the SLOT.  The point is that on open system, via the sun, does not solve the SLOT problem for evolutionist, it makes it much worse, becasue large molecules from AA's, (not stone, polymers or crystals) are exponentially less stable the more heat you add to the system.

 

Here is a test.  Get a pool of Amino Acids and heat them up and see what happens: 1) put them in a pool of water as test one; 2) put them in anaerobic conditions test 2 and then 3) put them in an aerobic conditions as test 3.  Did the molecules grow and evolve into life,  or did they decompose into smaller molecules.   The point is we can talk hypotheticals of SLOT but the real proof is in the pudding, the sun is limited on what it can do to chemical reactions.

You may bring up all kinds of obstacles against proposed steps towards the origin of life, even such concerning thermodynamics may be relevant - but I can’t see why, in any hypothetical reactions proposed, they would have to occur in an energetically closed system.  So, why would the 2LOT apply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then all you need do is show just one of those biochemical reactions violates any law of chemistry or physics.  Just one and it's game-over for evolution.

 

You missed my point.  In fact you inverted it 180 degrees.  My point is that the laws of chemistry and physics apply to biochemsty including SLOT.  That an open system does not fix the SLOT problem for evolutionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. As I see it, his point is the opposite; Life is NOT an adiabatic system, therefore 2LOT do NOT apply. I don’t think that the statement that 2LOT only applies to closed, or isolated, systems is something new in this discussion, although the term “adiabatic†might be. 

 

You may bring up all kinds of obstacles against proposed steps towards the origin of life, even such concerning thermodynamics may be relevant - but I can’t see why, in any hypothetical reactions proposed, they would have to occur in an energetically closed system.  So, why would the 2LOT apply?

Hi Johme,

 

How can you say the 2LOT doesn't apply in an open system?  You have to always compensate for 2LOT somehow.  For example, in a refrigerator the contents inside remain cold, but on the outside heat is created.  The reason the contents remain cold on the inside is because it has designed machinery and directed energy compensate for 2LOT. Can you just add random heat to the outside of a refrigerator and keep its contents cold?  Same thing with a cell, the cell has a cell wall and machinery compensating for the 2LOT just like a refrigerator.  It is not random energy from the sun that keeps a cell stable!!!!!

 

All reactions are governed by entropy.  The reaction coefficient Keq is a function of S.  The point is all reactions are governed by thermodynamics and it limits what reactions can take place.  I can get into the science, if you like, but simply look at the problem empirically - do you see long chain Amino acids, peptides and polypeptides, created by just adding heat.  Of course you don't, and the reason is thermodynamics restricts what reactions take place even in an open system.   In fact random heat, from the sun is destructive to keeping these molecules stable.  If you have directed energy created from ATP synthases you can do a lot, but that takes designed molecular machinery and intelligence. Life screams of intelligent design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Driewef,

 

 

The quote you provided is true -there is nothing in this universe that violates the SLOT.  Maybe God is the exception, who knows.

 

I hope you are not saying because we live in an open system that evolution is possible, that the SLOT is not relevant.  If so please show me how chemically anything evolves.  Remember all chemical reactions are governed by entropy (Keq).

That is exactly what I, and everyone who knows a little bit about thermodynamics, say.

 

Something to think about: does the formation of snowflakes violates the SLOT?

Yes? How do they form then?

No? Aren't snowflakes more ordered than vapour molecules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

driewerf: 

That statement is really, really dumb. Entropy is a FORCE....that exists whether it is measured by human beings or not.

Funny. During a long time you claimed that Entropy is a law. Now it's a force.

Are you even able to be consistent with yourself?

 

But more

No, it does not. Quite to the contrary the very first statement made there is: "Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force."

I used exactly the same phrase to show you that the "science source" you used is wrong. Except, I quoted the complete sentence, in post nr 371. And I suggest the reader go check for himself.

It's very telling that you omitted a part of that sentence, without even indicating as such.

The complete sentence is:

 

 

Entropy, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is an all pervasive natural force, similar in importance to gravity or electro- magnetism.

 

It's very obvious that the authors of this sentence consider entropy as a force, expressed in Newtons and symbolized by a vector. Both gravity and electromagnetism are vector quantities while entropy is a scalar quantity. Gravity and electromganetism are associated with fields. The Earth has both a magnetic and a gravitational field. Has anyone heard of an entropic field? Again, the source you quoted as reliable is wrong. And you lacked the critical skills or the scientific knowledge to spot this. 

 

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/vectors.html

As you can see on this page, entropy is listed in the left column as scalar quatity, forces are listed as vector quantities.

 

As for these two simple questions 

what are the units of force?

What are the units of entropy? 

 

You don't have to assign homeworks. You' re not in a classroom. But it is also telling that you refused to answer. You know very well that these two questions show you with your pants down. Just admit it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 but simply look at the problem empirically - do you see long chain Amino acids, peptides and polypeptides, created by just adding heat.  

Have you seen anyone suggest that will happen? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying the SLOT doesn't apply?  My gut reaction is this is crazy, but maybe I don't understand.  Isn't life governed by biochemistry which is governed by the laws of chemistry and physics?

Then all you need do is show just one of those biochemical reactions violates any law of chemistry or physics.  Just one and it's game-over for evolution.

You missed my point.  In fact you inverted it 180 degrees.  My point is that the laws of chemistry and physics apply to biochemsty including SLOT.  That an open system does not fix the SLOT problem for evolutionist.

I absolutely positively agree that the laws of physics, including the 2LOT apply to biochemistry.  No question.   Further, those laws are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, as stated in your initial comment (above).

 

What neither you, nor any other creationist has done is demonstrate (with appropriate measurements and calculations) that any step in the proposed evolution of life is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics as used by physicists and chemists.

 

At the risk of being repetitive .... do that just one time and it's game-over for evolution.

 

"I am, as a matter of fact, surprised that those Believers who advance this

argument (and reveal their ignorance of thermodynamics) should think that

the suggestion can possibly hold. Do they honestly think that scientists

are so stupid that they would not see the conflict between evolution and

the second law if it existed - or, seeing it, would be so lost in malice as

to ignore it just to spite God?"

_______________________________

 

"The Judo Argument," pages 225-237 in "The Planet That Wasn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am, as a matter of fact, surprised that those Believers who advance this

argument (and reveal their ignorance of thermodynamics) should think that

the suggestion can possibly hold. Do they honestly think that scientists

are so stupid that they would not see the conflict between evolution and

the second law if it existed - or, seeing it, would be so lost in malice as

to ignore it just to spite God?"

_______________________________

 

"The Judo Argument," pages 225-237 in "The Planet That Wasn't

 

And that, I believe, is one of the most crushing blows possible to creationism as a whole. The basic idea of scientists being either too stupid to understand what they've spent their lives studying, or so wrapped up in hatred for God that they collectively ignore the evidence in some massive world-wide conspiracy can be applied to all of the natural sciences (in the modern age). Poll after poll reveals the same thing: the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, even the theists! 

 

One has to wonder exactly what kind of world creationists propose we live in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely positively agree that the laws of physics, including the 2LOT apply to biochemistry.  No question.   Further, those laws are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, as stated in your initial comment (above).

 

What neither you, nor any other creationist has done is demonstrate (with appropriate measurements and calculations) that any step in the proposed evolution of life is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics as used by physicists and chemists.

 

At the risk of being repetitive .... do that just one time and it's game-over for evolution.

 

"I am, as a matter of fact, surprised that those Believers who advance this

argument (and reveal their ignorance of thermodynamics) should think that

the suggestion can possibly hold. Do they honestly think that scientists

are so stupid that they would not see the conflict between evolution and

the second law if it existed - or, seeing it, would be so lost in malice as

to ignore it just to spite God?"

_______________________________

 

"The Judo Argument," pages 225-237 in "The Planet That Wasn't

 

 

Your missed my point completely again to the point I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

 

The chemistry in living organisms are sustained by complex machinery like metabolisms.  Without the machinery the organisms die and decompose based upon the 2LOT.  The point, the 2LOT is not violated, but compensated for by complex designed machinery much like a car or a refrigerator.   So first please tell me how this complex machinery evolved? We have no clue.  Without this complex design machinery how is evolution even possible? It isn't, which is the entire point.  Life isn't possible based upon the 2LOT:  again if you disagree show me how the large AA's are sustained in open system without a metabolism?  You can't.  Then show me how a metabolism evolved- you can't.

 

I posted a link of one of the 10 most sited chemist stating flatly that he does not understand evolution from a synthetic chemist stand point and he is willing to sit down and listen to anyone who can explain it to him, which hasn't happened.  So to say science completely agrees with evolution is completely false.  Evolution is nothing more than had waving, they paint with large strokes and leave large gaps unanswered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that, I believe, is one of the most crushing blows possible to creationism as a whole. The basic idea of scientists being either too stupid to understand what they've spent their lives studying, or so wrapped up in hatred for God that they collectively ignore the evidence in some massive world-wide conspiracy can be applied to all of the natural sciences (in the modern age). Poll after poll reveals the same thing: the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution, even the theists! 

 

One has to wonder exactly what kind of world creationists propose we live in. 

Hi Guku,

 

What stage do you think evolution is at knowledge wise based upon the test below?  Can you find any scientist who thinks we are stage 3 or higher?  I think stage 2 is a huge stretch.  What do you think?

 

By the way science isn't a poll.  At one point in history most scientist thought the world was flat.  Science is based upon what you can prove, not a poll.

 

Stage 1. An alternative mechanism is proposed, random variation culled by natural selection, and preliminary evidence in favor of the new hypothesis is gathered and systematized.

 

Stage 2. In several paradigmatic cases, hypothetical Darwinistic pathways leading to actual adaptive forms are described in sufficient detail and with sufficient understanding of the underlying genetic and developmental processes that it seems virtually certain that these pathways represent genuine possibilities. These pathways must be possible, not only in the sense of involving no violation of physical or chemical laws, but also in the sense that every step in the path can be assigned an estimated probability that is sufficiently high for the joint probability of the entire pathway to be consistent with a reasonable belief that such a thing might really have happened.

 

Stage 3. For a significant number of hypothetical pathways of the kind described in stage two, we are able to verify that the pathway was probably actualized in history. New evidence from fossils and homologies is found that conforms to our specific expectations, based on the hypothetical pathways, and few if any instances of evidence are found that cannot readily be explained in terms of these pathways. Each hypothetical pathway describes a large number of intermediate steps, leading from some known ancestral form lacking the adaptation in question to some known form possessing it. Each step should be fully described at both the genetic and the morphological level: that is we should be specific about what mutations, lateral gene transfers, or other processes have occurred, and how the new genotype is expressed in morphology. For each step a hypothetical environment needs to be specified, and the tools of population genetics employed to show that the hypothetical new genotype would in fact be selected over its rivals in the hypothetical environment.

 

Stage 4. If nearly every case of apparent design has been successfully explained in Darwinian terms, and in each case we have found an overwhelming body of specific, confirming evidence, we are justified in treating Darwinism as established beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guku,

 

What stage do you think evolution is at knowledge wise based upon the test below?  Can you find any scientist who thinks we are stage 3 or higher?  I think stage 2 is a huge stretch.  What do you think?

 

By the way science isn't a poll.  At one point in history most scientist thought the world was flat.  Science is based upon what you can prove, not a poll.

 

I agree science isn't a poll, but the poll is still part of our reality and should be explained. There is no debate in academia about the validity of evolution, even among theistic scientists. The question is why? If creationism is true either virtually all scientists are incompetent or involved in a massive world-wide conspiracy to hide the truth to spite an all-knowing and all-powerful God. There aren't too many options left, and all of them appear highly unlikely to me. 

 

As for your stages I think it depends on how detailed you expect the explanations to be. To be blunt there is no way to know the exact developmental sequence morphologically or genetically in the sense that we can line up each and every species in order with excruciating detail on the changes and similarities of each species in comparison to the immediate past and future species. On a more broader level I think it is reasonable to conclude things like mammals evolved from reptiles and there are transitional series demonstrating this, but it isn't a step-by-step explanation of every species in the process, let alone a step-by-step explanation genetically. With that said I don't think evolution fits into any of your stages and I don't think it is a good gauge to evaluate the robustness of the theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree science isn't a poll, but the poll is still part of our reality and should be explained. There is no debate in academia about the validity of evolution, even among theistic scientists. The question is why? If creationism is true either virtually all scientists are incompetent or involved in a massive world-wide conspiracy to hide the truth to spite an all-knowing and all-powerful God. There aren't too many options left, and all of them appear highly unlikely to me. 

 

As for your stages I think it depends on how detailed you expect the explanations to be. To be blunt there is no way to know the exact developmental sequence morphologically or genetically in the sense that we can line up each and every species in order with excruciating detail on the changes and similarities of each species in comparison to the immediate past and future species. On a more broader level I think it is reasonable to conclude things like mammals evolved from reptiles and there are transitional series demonstrating this, but it isn't a step-by-step explanation of every species in the process, let alone a step-by-step explanation genetically. With that said I don't think evolution fits into any of your stages and I don't think it is a good gauge to evaluate the robustness of the theory. 

Hi Guku,

 

That is a very good post: Well written and thought out.  I am thinking of using your comments to start a new thread with your permission.

 

As a side note, I disagree.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guku,

 

That is a very good post: Well written and thought out.  I am thinking of using your comments to start a new thread with your permission.

 

As a side note, I disagree.  :)

 

By all means use my posts to start a new thread. See you there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely positively agree that the laws of physics, including the 2LOT apply to biochemistry.  No question.   Further, those laws are governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, as stated in your initial comment (above).

 

What neither you, nor any other creationist has done is demonstrate (with appropriate measurements and calculations) that any step in the proposed evolution of life is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics as used by physicists and chemists.

 

At the risk of being repetitive .... do that just one time and it's game-over for evolution.

 

"I am, as a matter of fact, surprised that those Believers who advance this

argument (and reveal their ignorance of thermodynamics) should think that

the suggestion can possibly hold. Do they honestly think that scientists

are so stupid that they would not see the conflict between evolution and

the second law if it existed - or, seeing it, would be so lost in malice as

to ignore it just to spite God?"

_______________________________

 

"The Judo Argument," pages 225-237 in "The Planet That Wasn't

 

Your missed my point completely again to the point I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

Well, I think our opinions of each other on this one are pretty much shared.  You are also missing the point to what is approaching the level of deliberately obtuse.... even when you acknowledge it.

 

 

The chemistry in living organisms are sustained by complex machinery like metabolisms.  Without the machinery the organisms die and decompose based upon the 2LOT.  The point, the 2LOT is not violated, but compensated for by complex designed machinery much like a car or a refrigerator.   So first please tell me how this complex machinery evolved? We have no clue.  Without this complex design machinery how is evolution even possible? It isn't, which is the entire point.  Life isn't possible based upon the 2LOT:  again if you disagree show me how the large AA's are sustained in open system without a metabolism?  You can't.  Then show me how a metabolism evolved- you can't.

First:  We have  agreed the research in abiogenesis is at a level far more basic than a cell with its modern metabolism.  The research is still working at the level of producing replicators.  It is nowhere near the level of living cells.

Second:  You are correct, we have no clue "how this complex machinery evolved."  That does not mean the first life forms required the "complex machinery" of modern life.  But "wedonno" does not, in itself, mean a fundamental law of physics has been violated.... as YEC claim with great certainty.

Third:  If one is claiming the 2LOT is violated, it is necessary to demonstrate the violation.  This is why I keep pointing out that if you can show just ONE energy transaction in ANY proposed model for the beginning of life, it's game over for evolution.  Just ONE will do it.

Fourth: As Asimov pointed out.... do you really think the vast majority of the physicists and chemists wouldn't spot a violation of this fundamental law instantly?  If they have noted a violation of the 2LOT, do you think they have such a high level of spite for God that they would deliberately conceal it?  Are you even remotely aware that scientific "fame and glory" doesn't come from "me too" but as the result of "upsetting the apple cart" (so to speak).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think our opinions of each other on this one are pretty much shared.  You are also missing the point to what is approaching the level of deliberately obtuse.... even when you acknowledge it.

 

 

First:  We have  agreed the research in abiogenesis is at a level far more basic than a cell with its modern metabolism.  The research is still working at the level of producing replicators.  It is nowhere near the level of living cells.

Second:  You are correct, we have no clue "how this complex machinery evolved."  That does not mean the first life forms required the "complex machinery" of modern life.  But "wedonno" does not, in itself, mean a fundamental law of physics has been violated.... as YEC claim with great certainty.

Third:  If one is claiming the 2LOT is violated, it is necessary to demonstrate the violation.  This is why I keep pointing out that if you can show just ONE energy transaction in ANY proposed model for the beginning of life, it's game over for evolution.  Just ONE will do it.

Fourth: As Asimov pointed out.... do you really think the vast majority of the physicists and chemists wouldn't spot a violation of this fundamental law instantly?  If they have noted a violation of the 2LOT, do you think they have such a high level of spite for God that they would deliberately conceal it?  Are you even remotely aware that scientific "fame and glory" doesn't come from "me too" but as the result of "upsetting the apple cart" (so to speak).

 

 

How does biochemicals found in living organisms compensate for the 2LOT?

 

How do these custom designed replicators compensate for the 2LOT?

 

In other words, what forces or energy are required to keep these molecules stable for any reasonable length of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does biochemicals found in living organisms compensate for the 2LOT?

 

How do these custom designed replicators compensate for the 2LOT?

 

In other words, what forces or energy are required to keep these molecules stable for any reasonable length of time?

I really dont know.  Biochemistry is  W - A - Y  outside my area of expertise.

 

As a teacher of science, I'm always trying to find ways to get my students to understand certain concepts.  On the matter of chemical bonding, one day I explained to my students that carbon combines with just about everything.  In fact, I sometimes refer to it as "the slut of the periodic table."   A few days later, I was walking past a couple boys in the hall and overheard one of them say: "She's just carbon."   Well, it isn't exactly what I had hoped for, but at least he understood about carbon.

 

What biochemical reaction found in living organisms is a violation of the 2LOT?  What biochemical reaction anywhere in any proposed hypothesis for the origin of life violates the 2LOT?   Can't name one?   Neither can I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont know.  Biochemistry is  W - A - Y  outside my area of expertise.

 

As a teacher of science, I'm always trying to find ways to get my students to understand certain concepts.  On the matter of chemical bonding, one day I explained to my students that carbon combines with just about everything.  In fact, I sometimes refer to it as "the slut of the periodic table."   A few days later, I was walking past a couple boys in the hall and overheard one of them say: "She's just carbon."   Well, it isn't exactly what I had hoped for, but at least he understood about carbon.

 

What biochemical reaction found in living organisms is a violation of the 2LOT?  What biochemical reaction anywhere in any proposed hypothesis for the origin of life violates the 2LOT?   Can't name one?   Neither can I.

 

I have heard your question several times. There is no biochemical reaction that violates the second law as far as I know.  I would be shocked if there was one.  But I don't understand the significance of the question.  

 

 My point has never been the second law was violated.  The only exceptions I can think of is abiogenesis and the big bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms