Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by 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. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
What there is of "guessing" (speculation unrooted in relevant and crucial evidence) tends to get cast aside. The problem (for your view of evolutionary science) is that scientists in that field are every bit as competitive and intellectually aggressive as those in any other.
There are several ways to make a reputation in science:
Your comic book view of evolution (thinking Jack Chick here of course) requires a massive departure from basic tendencies of human nature by the whole of evolutionary science. It requires that thousands of experts, thoroughly familiar with the relevant evidence, and trained to rip apart inadequate ideas, repeatedly and universally refrain from doing so even though it would be in their direct professional interest.
Ooops. Intruded on your conversation and meant to ping you to the previous...
Why is it a false parallel to point out that there does not exist any data to cover the "gaps" in the fossil record and therefore there has to be a logical connection made by some valid device. (Note that I said logical device, not logical proof, as there is no logical proof.)
That you chose to call it by the scientific word "Guess" and I choose to call it a leap of faith (Faith: the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof.) is semantics.
You are making an argument just for arguments sake. I do not disagree with you.
Good post. No problem; keep it up.
paraphrase from Science Made Stupid:
One advantage that the early mammals had over the dinosaurs is that they generally bore their young alive. As research has conclusively demonstrated, animals that bore their young dead generally got nowhere.
(Insert your own liberal pro-choice joke here...)
Cheers!
My impression is that this is incorrect. I think most "EvoDudes" (and EvoBabes) nowadays would concede that BOTH PunkEq and Phyletic Gradualism occur, and that there are excellent examples of BOTH in the fossil record. I also think that most evolutionists would agree that there are multiple modes of speciation: that there is not one single pattern that occurs every time. This is a consilient observation since the PE versus PG debate is really just about modes of speciation as preserved in the fossil record.
The feline version of Shakespeare:
Q. Row-meow, Row-meow, wherefore art thou, Row-meow?
A. Here under the hedge, chasing mice!
Cheers!
"......creationists completely misunderstanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a hilarious and embarassing way.
I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry and a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering (both with GPAs greater than 3.5). I lectured a Physical Chemistry lab my senior year. I can't even remember how many thermo classes that I took to obtain both degrees.
Can you explain clearly, with examples, exactly how this author does not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I would especially like to hear about the "hilarious and embarassing" parts. "
I'm with you here. I had physics and thermo over 20 years ago. The Second Law of Thermo always had me wondering how it could jibe with Darwinism at life's origins.
Aside from snide dismissals, I'm still waiting for a concise, reasonable explanation why one cannot bring up the Second Law of thermo when we are debating if life started from naturalistic, non-intelligent, random forces.
-- Joe
There have been a lot of gaps in evolutionary data, particularly in the fossil collections, and things are getting worse. Let me explain.
When Darwin wrote, there were very few fossils available. From that point on much has been made, by some, concerning the "missing links" -- this is probably what you mean by gaps.
The theory of evolution makes predictions what fossils are in those gaps, and often suggests where to go to look for them. And since Darwin, tens of thousands of fossils have been found and studied.
Now the problem. Every time one of those fossils is found, fitting into a gap, you end up with two gaps! The theory of evolution has been supported, and the gaps are much smaller, but those opposed to evolution still make a lot of noise about those gaps -- "Look, there are more of them than ever." They seldom study the actual data to see how much evidence there really is.
NO IT ISN'T!!! If it's reduced then it must be replaced SOMEHOW or we wouldn't observe that virtually all populations (excepting those that have experienced recent population bottlenecks or the like) maintain high levels of variation. The variation can't be maintained unless it is continually renewed.
You misunderstand, I am not a disciple of Jack Chick.
He has written some interesting stuff, but so has Darwin and his diciples. There is nothing wrong in advancing a theory.
...and trained to rip apart inadequate ideas, repeatedly and universally refrain from doing so even though it would be in their direct professional interest.
It is a protection of the professional Presthood, nothing more.
The fact that they don't criticize erronious collegues is self preservation, not hunt for the truth. They don't want to be attacked and excommunicated (or executed) like was done in medieval times when erronious dogma was enforced.
You notice that Lawyers also for the most part don't attack each other, ---- neither do sharks, but that doesn't mean they are nice or correct.
My problem with evolutionists is their use of Law Suits, and Political muscle to enforce their dogma. If they will admit that it is partly based on Guess( the scientific term) or faith (the stronger and more accurate term) and let someone else advance competing theories would suit me fine.
I guess I give up. I can't tell from whence or where you are coming.
This is my point exactly. The Bible calls it Prophecies, but that is semantics. It is the same thing.
If you will read in the Book of Mathew where it is predicted or prophicied about the "last days" (our time) you will see a very accurate discription of what exists today.
The fact that you cover your prophecies with Guesses, (more accurately statements of faith.) makes it that your beliefs are just as faith based as those who beleive the Bible. (both make predictions that can be verified by later observations.)
It is arrogant to say that you have "truth" and others are freeks.
Yep, you got it. Anyone can talk about all of the things that happened 15 billion years ago. Because there is absolutely no written history of what happened back then. (Of course, just the number itself boggles the mind.) But - assuming the evolutionists are right - can I expect a Ferrari to appear in my driveway if I wait long enough? Now that would be cool!!!
I only ask that evolutionists stop using semantics to differentiate their "beliefs" and "dogma" from others, when in actuallity, the theory is just as full of statements of belief as any religeon.
It is not wrong to use statements of belief (a scientific term) or faith to explain things. Just allow others to do the same. I do it all the time.
It is Dogmatic to require everyone to accept all the beliefs of evolutionists without question.
Just explain your teachings as containing some truth and some guess. That is not too much to request.
I am in the same boat. While I have no doubt that natural selection does work on the "micro" level (as far as time is concerned), I am also undecided about evolution as the source of live over the long term. I guess my problem is that I find it difficult to take natural selection and interpolate it to affirm evolution, given what I know about "classical" physics, and how it differs from quantum physics.
Mark
Dumb replies are used to mask what would be a statement of belief or a leap of faith if it were answered by what they really believe.
There is nothing wrong in using a statement of belief to explain something that cannot be proven, but they would rather insult other people.
"The variation can't be maintained unless it is continually renewed."
Which is precisely why it wasn't the only source listed.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
However, the CR take on this is that the "mutations" or "new Information" is already there ("pre-coded"), just hidden to be uncovered later by assorted mechanisms. However, every day we get new sequence data from assorted organisms and this "hidden" pile of genetic information just isn't there in unexplained ORFs (at least in bacteria). As time goes by Johnny B Good will have to alter his current hypothesis, which has at least some semblance of rationality compared to other CR "ideas".
Well, for starters, I'd say that having to EXPLAIN it to you, would make my point.
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.