Skip to comments.
Autocatakinesis, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production
Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 6 ^
| 1997
| Rod Swenson
Posted on 05/04/2005 10:48:30 AM PDT by betty boop
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 261 next last
To: 2ndreconmarine; betty boop; Ronzo
Thank you for your reply!
The simple fact is that he got the entropy issue wrong. His argument is unphysical.
His argument is indeed "unphysical" - that is precisely the point. You are debating an "unphysical" argument using physical entropy which argument itself is evidence of the "incommensurability" he bemoans. As I tried to explain in post 62, there is more than one kind of entropy. Shannon entropy for instance decreases (reduction of uncertainty) with successful communication in biological systems.
This, information theory, is one segment of the "unphysical" considerations which complete the whole picture in an evolution of one.
For more on Shannon entropy v physical entropy in "information theory and molecular biology": Theory of Molecular Machines. II. Energy Dissipation
To: betty boop; general_re
I really am looking for a "Theory of Everything" (ToE); You don't say you're a monist like general_re?
82
posted on
05/05/2005 8:11:45 AM PDT
by
cornelis
To: JohnnyM
> gene sequences do not just form from molecules without the information to do so.
What leads you to this blinding insight, given that amino acids "just form from molecules", and proteins "just form from molecules?"
> Evolution and abiogenesis do not account for where this information comes from.
Actually, evolution explains it just fine.
83
posted on
05/05/2005 8:17:41 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: Alamo-Girl
> The theory of evolution itself does not ask or answer the question "what is life?".
Nor does the theory of relativity ask or answer the question "what is light?".
> I very strongly agree with Swenson that more than physical processes are necessary to explain the emergence and evolution of the biosphere
Sadly for you and Swenson, lab experiments have shown that basic physical processes are quite up to the task. No magic needed.
> If you have an explanation for any of the above which is by physical processes alone...
Yes. As to "information:" It's stunningly obvious, and I'm always amazed that people choose to ignore the obvious physical nature of it. A very short gene sequences adds another term, via replication error or whatever; the mere addition of another gene is more information, just as adding one letter at random to a word is more information. Whether that information is useful or not is something the environment will determine, based on its effects on the gene sequence/organism as a whole. If it's a net positive, it stays. If a negative, it dies. Just that simple. Increased genes = increased information.
As to the rest, I fail to see why you need to resort to magic to explain 'em.
84
posted on
05/05/2005 8:24:59 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: orionblamblam; JohnnyM; betty boop
Er, if I may...
JohnnyM Evolution and abiogenesis do not account for where this information comes from. you: Actually, evolution explains it just fine.
Information is "the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state". This is based on Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communications How does the theory of evolution - which does not even address abiogenesis much less information theory - explain the emergence of information (successful communication, not the message)?
To: cornelis; Alamo-Girl; marron; Ronzo
You don't say you're a monist like general_re? Ultimately it seems to me that dualism refers to a complementarity that ultimately resolves in Unity. Somehow or other, the Universe is the eikon of that Unity. (There are religious implications here.)
At least that's where my thinking is tending these days. Does this make me a monist or a dualist?
86
posted on
05/05/2005 8:30:35 AM PDT
by
betty boop
(If everyone is thinking alike, then no one is thinking. -- Gen. George S. Patton)
To: betty boop
Boltzmanns view of the second law of thermodynamics as a law of disorder Poor Boltzmann, lost out to ultra-empiricist Mach. Lost everything.
87
posted on
05/05/2005 8:31:27 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(These problems would not exist if we had had a moon base all along)
To: orionblamblam; betty boop; Ronzo
Thank you for your reply! But, er, nobody is resorting to magic to explain the "unphysical" aspects of life v non-life/death in nature.
me: I very strongly agree with Swenson that more than physical processes are necessary to explain the emergence and evolution of the biosphere you: Sadly for you and Swenson, lab experiments have shown that basic physical processes are quite up to the task. No magic needed.
If there are lab experiments to explain the emergence and evolution of information, autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence - then by all means, please list them here! There are a lot of mathematicians and physicists wasting their time if the answer has been discovered in the lab.
Yes. As to "information:" It's stunningly obvious, and I'm always amazed that people choose to ignore the obvious physical nature of it. A very short gene sequences adds another term, via replication error or whatever; the mere addition of another gene is more information, just as adding one letter at random to a word is more information. Whether that information is useful or not is something the environment will determine, based on its effects on the gene sequence/organism as a whole. If it's a net positive, it stays. If a negative, it dies. Just that simple. Increased genes = increased information.
Information is not the message (DNA/RNA) but the successful communication of it. More specifically, information is defined as "the reduction of uncertainty in the receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state".
To: betty boop
Thank you for your great posts!
At least that's where my thinking is tending these days. Does this make me a monist or a dualist?
Since I think the same way you do, I'm curious about the label too.
To: Alamo-Girl
> How does the theory of evolution - which does not even address abiogenesis much less information theory - explain the emergence of information (successful communication, not the message)?
Read my previous post. Evolution explains it just fine.
90
posted on
05/05/2005 8:37:21 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: orionblamblam
because in order for a gene sequences to form a single strand of DNA it must constructed in a certain order. These amino acids and proteins have no way of knowing (information) what that order should be.
JM
91
posted on
05/05/2005 8:38:16 AM PDT
by
JohnnyM
To: betty boop; general_re
Perhaps general_re can answer that better than I. He, too, thinks in a similar way: your "complementarity that ultimately resolves" is his "most scientists tend towards the reductionist - psychology is biology, biology is chemistry, chemistry is in turn ultimately physics - I'm having trouble seeing said incommensurability as much more than a convenient strawman"
92
posted on
05/05/2005 8:41:02 AM PDT
by
cornelis
To: cornelis
I find your lack of faith most...disturbing. </darthvader>
93
posted on
05/05/2005 8:41:08 AM PDT
by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: Alamo-Girl
> If there are lab experiments to explain the emergence and evolution of information
Look up the Miller experiments, which demonstrated the production of amino acids from much simpler chemicals, and the follow-up experiemnts by Fox which demonstrated simple physical principles turning those amino acids into proteinoid-based protolife indistinguishable for the oldest microfossils.
> Information is not the message (DNA/RNA)
ERRRR. DNA is self-replicating. DNA is thus both message and messenger.
> autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
94
posted on
05/05/2005 8:42:09 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: sauropod
95
posted on
05/05/2005 8:43:16 AM PDT
by
sauropod
(De gustibus non est disputandum)
To: JohnnyM
> These amino acids and proteins have no way of knowing (information) what that order should be.
True enough. Those gene sequences that get it randomly wrong die. Those that get it randomly right live. Just that simple, no magic or "intent" required.
96
posted on
05/05/2005 8:43:29 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: general_re
Yes, well, there's always hope for a clown when his socks are down. </c3po>
97
posted on
05/05/2005 8:58:43 AM PDT
by
cornelis
To: orionblamblam
To believe a structure as complex as DNA can be formed randomly from amino acids and proteins without the guidance of any intelligence is amazing faith. Each DNA strand is made up of thousands of genes, with each gene being composed of thousands of base pairs (pairs of amino acids). In order for a strand of DNA to be viable all of this has to be ordered exactly right. This simply is impossible to be done randomly.
JM
98
posted on
05/05/2005 9:15:08 AM PDT
by
JohnnyM
To: orionblamblam
To believe a structure as complex as DNA can be formed randomly from amino acids and proteins without the guidance of any intelligence is amazing faith. Each DNA strand is made up of thousands of genes, with each gene being composed of thousands of base pairs (pairs of amino acids). In order for a strand of DNA to be viable all of this has to be ordered exactly right. This simply is impossible to be done randomly.
JM
99
posted on
05/05/2005 9:15:37 AM PDT
by
JohnnyM
To: JohnnyM
> To believe a structure as complex as DNA can be formed randomly from amino acids and proteins without the guidance of any intelligence is amazing faith.
Hardly. Does it stagger your imagination to understand how a DNA gene five amino acids long could form? If five units, adding a sixth is easy. And a seventh. And an eighth. Soon enough, given billions of years, it is quite easy to see how DNA as long as you want can evolve.
> In order for a strand of DNA to be viable all of this has to be ordered exactly right. This simply is impossible to be done randomly.
WRONG. It is quite possible. In fact... you can see the evidence of it all around you. Besides... it all doesn't ahve to be "exactly right." there is quite a volume of "junk" genes in the DNA of every sizable critter, including you.
100
posted on
05/05/2005 9:28:00 AM PDT
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 261 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson