Posted on 10/06/2014 3:58:38 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Your truncation of the responses have made it a time-waster to have to go back and find out what your question was. This is an example of entropy in action. In the future, you might want to state the case more clearly in each response to make it easier to answer.
I'm guessing now that your original demand was:
Can you post a version of the 2nd Law that supports your claim?
The answer is not "No"; it is "Yes, I can."
Going a little further back, if the question you asked was:
Evolution violates the 2nd Law?
The answer to that is not "No"; the answer is also "Yes, it absolutely does."
What is your next question?
Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased.
I don't see anything stated or implied in this version which makes evolution impossible.
If you could, please post your version of the 2nd Law and explain why you think it supports your claim about evolution.
Thanks.
Another, similar way to put the 2nd Law is that all natural processes tend toward a maximum of disorder. The theory of evolution requires biological processes to increase order through by means of inconsistent or irregular replication, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. The fact is, we are not surrounded by examples of transitional species upgrading by fitter biologies; rather, species continue to disappear through unfitness, and nothing is taking their places, as a true scientist observer would expect.
I believe you misunderstand the 2nd Law.
While the Universe tends toward maximum disorder or entropy, not every part has to.
A tree is more complex than an acorn, that doesn't mean trees violate the 2nd law.
Glucose has less entropy than CO2 and H2O, that doesn't mean photosynthesis violates the 2nd Law.
Doesn't make any sense to me. The law must be restricted to non-living materials, exempting biological organisms and human creativity.
First, tell me how you get an ordered system from non-order (or better yet from absolutely nothing), to which the second law may apply.
A tree is more complex than an acorn, that doesn't mean trees violate the 2nd law.
It is? Show me that the code is less complex than what it represents. Or that scrambling or eliminating part of the code results (1) in a viable copy that (2) then reproduces itself.
==========
Actually, at root what you want to do is show me that there is no God, or at least that evolution rules, and that I am too dense to cease letting the entropy of indecision regarding this issue waste my time.
Did you miss my mention of photosynthesis?
A tree is more complex than an acorn,
It is?
Absolutely. Trees have roots, branches, and leaves, while an acorn has none of those.
Show me that the code is less complex than what it represents.
Why are you changing the subject? We're discussing complexity, entropy and the 2nd Law.
Or that scrambling or eliminating part of the code results (1) in a viable copy that (2) then reproduces itself.
Huh? We're discussing the 2nd Law and your attempt to show how your favorite version of the 2nd Law proves your claim about evolution.
Actually, at root what you want to do is show me that there is no God
Not at all, I'm trying to understand your 2nd Law claim.
or at least that evolution rules,
If you can't show that the 2nd Law proves your claim about evolution, I understand.
and that I am too dense to cease letting the entropy of indecision regarding this issue waste my time.
I'm not sure you understand what entropy means.
No time for this today, and perhaps never. Increase in entropy of my activities forbids.
Please let me know if you're still confused about your error.
I'm always happy to help a fellow Freeper improve his understanding of science.
I'll let you know when I'm satisfied that you understand, when I get confused, and where I do not know both science and the scientific method.
Once more, one statement of the second law of thermodynamics is that all natural processes tend toward a maximum of disorder, which is a maximum of entropy. I learned this in physical chemistry about 54 years ago. This, as one definition, does not seem to have changed. If it did, my textbook and the professor, a protege of Edward Teller, will have been quite wrong.
If we were discussing an isolated system, you'd have a point.
The Earth is not an isolated system, which is why oak trees and photosynthesis do not violate the 2nd Law.
This, as one definition, does not seem to have changed. If it did, my textbook and the professor, a protege of Edward Teller, will have been quite wrong.
Don't worry, I won't tell him what you forgot.
He's dead now. Entropy has overcome him, in that the ability of his body to reproduce viable replacement cells.
And where did oak trees and acorns and their reproductive systems come from?
Wasn't it you who changed the topic from irregular replication (of genetic codes upon which evolution depends) to oaks and glucose and photosynthesis, which are irrelevant at this point?
If you want a topic change, let's go back to life from non-life. Hmm? Or let's hear what you have on an example of the appearance of a totally new species not coded in the DNA of a parent species, which is tackling the problem in the middle and neglect of life from non-life.
Oaks and photosynthesis are relevant to this discussion.
They show how your understanding of entropy and the 2nd Law are flawed.
To get back on topic, why does your favorite version of the 2nd Law make evolution impossible?
I am going to minimize entropy in this limited exchange by referring you to the order already put into this concept by the summary of another Ph. D., John D. Morris: Excerpt from A Barrier to Evolution (click here)
"Evolutionary innovation is thought to occur through unguided mutation and natural selection. How many random tries would it take to either devise a complicated process (like photosynthesis) or write a complex code [like DNA)? Both must be present for life to function and continue. But compare the fact that they already exist and function, guiding the plant through its life cycle, to the evolutionary hope that they can self-generate. The entropy law forbids them to simply appear when the need arises. An open system and raw energy are insufficient."
====== end of excerpt for learning use only ======
(Just a sample of the dozens of articles which ould intimate exactly the same rejection of Darwinianism. Even atheistic scientists have thoroughly and reasonongly rejected macroevolution.)
The idea is that microscopic disturbances to anomalously reorder, eliminate, or/and add to the genetic code (the code that uniquely replicates a viable unique individual by recombinations of the codes of (a) prior individual(s)] are so likely to cause incompatibility (hence non-propagation/death) of the changed code, and so unlikely statistically to produce a whole new viable generation of individuals, heretofore impossible to obtain only by recombination of the existing code, that it is for all practical purposes impossible to generate one--let alone thousands, one upon another--of independent species, that the propositions signifying the hypopthesis of the anrhropologically-derived theory of evolution are illogical, as well as laughable, to creatures able to distinguish irreconcilable philosophies of existence, only one of which can explain origins (that is, creation), that posits something from nothing, and after that, order from disorder.
Can you grasp this?
Now, how often will you find another process which could and would formulate the alphabetic code to exactly the same specifications as I have above, to reproduce exactly the same sentence out of the exact number of letters (lower and upper cases), punctuation, brackets, and spaces such that it cannot be distinuished that it was independently produced by a completely different process such that only I could tell that it was not made by myself?
Pretty slim, isn't it, even if you as an onlooker, permitted a billion years to produce it by both the other, non-intelligent, random chance process, as well as the thought order communicated? The probability alone, of creating a group of letters and symbols of the exact distribution of instances of each component, would be awesome. Doable, but forbiddingly improbable without intelligence, especially if it is to be done within the time the above sentence already intelligently composed will exist in and be archived somewhere.
Statistical thermodynamics are against you, my FRiend. Do you see and understand what your theory is up against? Does this begin to enlighten your incomplete understanding of the (itself statistical as to the probability of even the existence of the second law) implications of entropy in the system which we inhabit?
(The above sentence was composed for your benefit, it being itself a legitimate individual entity, created as a vehicle to carry the concept of the impossibility of Darwinianism premises.)
When you are able to explain the appearance of physical entities time, dimensions, mass, and gravity from nothing, ex nihilo, then you may come back and challenge the foundation my philosophy is built on. Until then, we have no basis for exchange in this sphere of intellect. I'm stopping my clock on this instance of contention.
Whale hips are not vestigial, not now useless but merely left over from evolution.
One possible explanation, though not necessarily true, is that normal humans have interbred with the Nephilim over the centuries.
A lot!
The entropy law forbids them to simply appear when the need arises.
The entropy law? What's that?
Do you see and understand what your theory is up against?
My theory?
Does this begin to enlighten your incomplete understanding of the (itself statistical as to the probability of even the existence of the second law) implications of entropy in the system which we inhabit?
My incomplete understanding? LOL!
I'm not the one who thinks Earth is an isolated system.
As a professor of dentistry at Baylor University, he was challemged to prove his position on evolutionism. His researches convinced him that secular or theistic evolution theories were wrong, and he wrote of his conclusions.
Here is an excerpt from Dr. Martin's paper "3 Has God Been Toppled?" (click here) regarding Darwin and recent evolutionary scientists:
He wrote to a friend in 1863:
"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change."
. . .
Obviously, in 1863, four years after publishing Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin had no idea how one species might change into another. The only thing he thought he could prove was that “...no one species has changed.” He could not even imagine what a “beneficial” change might look like. Scientists today remain as baffled as Darwin.
The world’s leading evolutionary thinkers had a convention in Rome in 1981. They wanted to decide what makes one species evolve into another species, and how that change, from one animal or plant into another, might occur. Dr. Ernst Mayr, professor emeritus of Harvard, writes:
"We had an international conference in Rome in 1981 on the mechanisms of speciation. It was attended by many of the leading botanists, zoologists, paleontologists, geneticists, cytologists and biologists. The one thing on which they all agreed was that we still have absolutely no idea what happens genetically during speciation. That’s a damning statement, but it’s the truth."
********end of excerpt for teaching purposes only *********
You would be better prepared if you can overcome the arguments given by Dr. Jobe Martin (Doctor of Dentistry and Th. M. frm Dallas Theological Seminary) in his book and/or DVD "The Evolution of a Creationist" (click here) with the contents as follows:
o Preface
o Marvels Of God’s Creation
o 1 The Evolution Of A Creationist
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #1: The Bombardier Beetle
o 2 ...And Then Came Assumptions
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #2: The Incubator Bird
o 3 Has God Been Toppled?
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #3: The Black And Yellow Garden Spider
o 4 “Missing Links” Are Missing
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #4: The Gecko Lizard And The Human Ear (Tiny Things)
o 5 Orangutans, Monkeys And Man
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #5: The Giraffe
o 6 The Ten Commandments And The Days Of The Creation Week
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #6: The Angler Fish
o 7 Earth’s Pre-Flood Water Canopy And The Dinosaur Mystery
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #7: The Beaver
o 8 Do Mutations Produce New Life Forms?
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #8: The Chicken Egg
o 9 Earth: Young Or Old? Give Me Facts, Not Assumptions
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #9: The Chuckwalla Lizard
o 10 Deception In The Textbooks
-- Marvel Of God’s Creation #10: The Woodpecker
o Conclusion
o Epilogue
========
(I have been acquainted with Dr. Martin and his wife for about 20 years.)
What parts of the 2nd law of thermodynamics are not based on the observation and statistical mathematics that biologies employing photosynthesis did not arise from species that did not need photosynthesis to sustain life?
The ones that you made up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.