Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure

The American Spectator ^ | December 28, 2005 | Granville Sewell

[johnnyb_61820]

... the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.

Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is "compensated" somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system. S. Angrist and L. Hepler, for example, in "Order and Chaos", write, "In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law.... Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy."

According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal -- and the door is open. In Appendix D of my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, second edition, I take a closer look at the equation for entropy change, which applies not only to thermal entropy but also to the entropy associated with anything else that diffuses, and show that it does not simply say that order cannot increase in a closed system. It also says that in an open system, order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. ...

[js1138]

Elsie has a charming typographical style that save me the trouble of scrolling down to see who is posting.

As for Bible verses, they are a welcome respite from the incoherent drivel that most of Elsie's buds post.

[Dan(9698)]

As for Bible verses,

These debates about all the minutia are beginning to resemble the philisophical debates by the Church Fathers of the middle ages where they debated at length about how many Angeles could dance on the head of a pin.

They skip the inconvient matter that changes from one species to another is explained by a leap of faith. It must take place because mastidons became elephants. Everyone already knows that, so it doesn't have to be shown how, in a peer reviewed article with detailed studies.

Commonly held beliefs that cannot be proven are in fact commonly held faith. Using statements of faith are OK to explain what cannot be proven.

[Coyoteman]

It must take place because mastidons became elephants. Everyone already knows that, so it doesn't have to be shown how, in a peer reviewed article with detailed studies.

OK, and what did mammoths become?

[Coyoteman]

Here's a hint:

[fella]

Condescending and ridicule are the ways faithful true-believers protect their idols from scrutiny.

[grey_whiskers]

OK, and what did mammoths become?

These:

[Stultis]

"Mutation on the other hand does cause variation. What other mechanism do you propose, btw?"

1) Natural heterozygous variation
2) Transposon-mediated variation
3) Recombination-based variation
4) Other sorts of cell-mediated variation
5) Viral-induced variation
6) Degenerative mutations

Your #1 is REDUCED by selection effects, and by population bottlenecks, and in fact simply by time (there is a definite probability that, absent strong selective pressure to maintain it, a given allele will disappear from a population simply by genetic drift). I was asking how you propose -- apart from mutation -- that variation originates and is continually renewed. This isn't an answer.

#2 (transposable elements or "jumping genes") again doesn't increase variation, it just rearranges it. That variation too will tend to be LOST over time unless it is somehow REPLACED by new variation.

Likewise #3 doesn't add variation. It just shuffles alleles and other genetic elements into new arrangements. The underlying variation will be reduced over time unless replaced.

Your #4, cell-mediated variation, is even worse. Obviously it's drastically reduced with every generation since only one gamete from each parent contributes its cytoplasmic elements to the offspring! (Very, very occasionally the cytoplasm from more than one sperm may end up in the fertilized egg.)

With #5, you gotta be kidding, right? Yes, viruses can sometime inject new material into cellular DNA, but that's nowhere near enough to maintain variation against genetic drift and selective effects. Remember that to have any effect beyond the infected individual a virus must infect a gamete (sperm or egg cell), AND the infection must fail for some reason (so that the cell survives), AND the infected gamete must be one that happens to involved in a successful reproductive event. Even then all you have is a bit of viral DNA that failed to perform it's own function (otherwise the cell would have been killed or co-opted) not a new functional allele. So to all those other "AND"s you gotta add the very long chance that the virus drags some functional DNA from another individual, which again (except on the additional longshot that it's from another species, even though most viruses are species specific) doesn't increase the variation within a species, but only moves it around.

As for #6 I have no idea what you mean by "degenerative mutation". If you mean simply deleterious mutation then that's not an issue in any case. Unless only weakly deleterious those will be eliminated anyway and don't contribute long term to variation.

So, again, how do you increase -- or even maintain -- the variation that obviously exists in populations without mutation?

[Stultis]

Most Access DBs are (quick and dirty).

Not mine! Since I'm an utter amateur they take me forever and are too laughably jury-rigged to accumulate dirt.

[Dan(9698)]

...demonstrate what is "plainly wrong" with the theory of evolution?

It is difficult to make a study of the beliefs of the Theory of Evolution, because it is hard to identify what is approved writings, and which are like the stem cell stuff from Korea.

I suggest that someone gather the peer revieued and approved(cannonized) writings into just a few volumes. It could then be broken into verses so an index and concordance could be developed.

That would make it easier for lay people to study and deveolp our own statements of faith.

[Dan(9698)]

Here's a hint:

If the teachings of Evolutionists are based just on hints, it for sure requires a leap of faith to jump from one of those lines to the next.

In legal circles it is called a "chain of custody" showing how some evidence got from there to here.

If it is based on faith, that is ok. Just don't call it science.

[Coyoteman]

In post #1202 you wrote "It must take place because mastidons became elephants. Everyone already knows that, so it doesn't have to be shown how, in a peer reviewed article with detailed studies."

I queried you on this in #1203, and in #1204 I provided a "hint," a nice diagram showing the development of the different elephant species. It shows that mastidons [sic] did not became elephants.

Your response to the diagram, "If the teachings of Evolutionists are based just on hints, it for sure requires a leap of faith to jump from one of those lines to the next" does not make sense.

Evolution relies on both facts and theories; there is no "leap of faith." That sounds more appropriate to a religion.

There has been, and still is, a lot of hard work going into all of the different fields of study that contribute to evolution. It is an exciting field, and producing some very interesting results. You really should look into it sometime.

[Dan(9698)]

Evolution relies on both facts and theories; there is no "leap of faith."

The Apostle Paul defined Faith as hope in things not seen.

Your faith that the Theories will come to pass certainly is an expression of faith in the teachings of your anointed.

It certainly is not proven science.

Expressions of faith are OK. I don't critiscize anyone for that.

[Coyoteman]

Your faith that the Theories will come to pass certainly is an expression of faith in the teachings of your anointed.

Not quite. Scientists create theories, with a lot of hard work, as explanations. We do not hope they "will come to pass" but rather hope they are accurate. If not, they will be modified. In this manner theories are becoming increasingly more accurate as time passes. That's the way science works.

And as no doubt has been pointed out to you, theories are never proved. As such, there is no such thing as "proven science." But:

There is nothing so practical as a good theory.

Kurt Lewin

For the lurkers, here are a few definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

Observation: any information collected with the senses

Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Religion: (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system of faith and worship." Non-Theistic: "The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life."

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

[Dan(9698)]

For the lurkers, here are a few definitions:

Thank you for your definitions. It is good to be on the same page in definitions.

The thing about definitions though is the implication that a certain concept is different because it is identified by a different word.

.... a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I would then say that many of the concepts of the theory of evolution are based on "Guess" (your word) rather than theorys.

Why then are students thrown out of college for "Guessing" different than the official "guesser"?

[Elsie]

Neither if your statements has any meaning.

To you perhaps.

[Elsie]

Nobody has shown how one species becomes another.

"Of COURSE not!", says EvoDude, "For this would be that PUNK EEK stuff that all (well, MOST) of us Evo's have discounted already. That's like a MIRACLE er sumpthin'!"

---

(Note:Specie A takes MANY small changes to get to Specie B, none of which manage to get 'preserved'.)

[Elsie]

Is the molecule you end up with the same as the one you started with?

Nope; why do you ask?

[Elsie]

Note: "Thus, under adverse conditions, cells may use this error-prone polymerase to produce variants that allow their descendents to survive.

Uh.. ok....

[Elsie]

How do you think it got dehydrated?

By loss of moisture?? ;^)

[Elsie]

...so I'm out to celebrate.

Well; make it back safely!