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 ...
Thanks for linking that. Only through the introductory elements so far, but looks very valuable.
Yeah, OK. I've already read some of Shapiro's stuff, and have been following such subjects since I first read about Barbara McClintock's work when I was a teenager (several decades ago).
Nice article. I notice it raises the question -- raised and unanswered on this thread -- of how the processes of evolution differ thermodynamically from other life processes.
Or how an increase in information produced by evolution differs conceptually or thermodynamically from learning in animals or humans.
|
In 1984 George Orwell portrays the importance of language in controlling thought. The totalitarian regime depicted in the novel had developed its own language -- Newspeak -- to meet the ideological needs of Oceania. In the novel's appendix on the language, Orwell explains:
|
HMmmm...This sounds WAY too familiar!
I see that it didn't, but the link is fascinating fo it's detail.
'Specially showing that to REALLY screw up yer calendar you need a computer!! ;^)
I did not claim that the text was full of errors.
Not sure where you think I wronged you. I was only ever referring to the appendix in question.
The serious part of my question, though, was about Barbara J. Stahl's book "Vertebrate History: problems in evolution". The 1 reviewer on Amazon seems to think this is a rather brutally honest admission of the failure of the paleontological record to support evolution, written by a total evolutionary paleontology insider.
But whenever I think I've come across a book that provides a stunning critique of Darwinism, it turns out someone on this thread can tell me that it's full of errors or some such thing, so I was just wondering if someone could save me the time of reading it. Since talkorigins, you folks, all say that there is no problem in supporting evolution from paleontology. So someone's gotta be wrong.
Right?
(I'm really hoping someone says 'Stahl doesn't understand evolution'. That would be like Christmas, just funner.)
Re faith...
As I said, I didn't provide a definition because I wanted to see if you could be bothered to find a correct definition on your own. Sometimes it's best not to do other people's work for them.
The second defintion you posted is much better. At the very least it doesn't sound like it was taken from an American Humanist Association pamphlet. Faith exists when there is not proof, but not necessarily when there is not evidence. In fact, the vast majority of things we think we know are actually expressions of faith based on varying degress of evidence. The classic example of trusting that the chair you sit down on will not collapse under you.
Interestingly, when Jesus Christ rose from the dead, it states clearly that he appeared to numerous people at various times and did various characteristic things precisely in order to provide _evidence_ of his resurrection. (Early) Christians were never asked just to accept his resurrection on blind faith, but rather based on evidence.
Also, anyone who has studied epistemology knows that all knowledge -- with the arguable exception of self-knowledge -- is mediated, and all mediated knowledge is based on trust that the mediating agencies, be they your own senses, or other people's words, are reliable.
Too often evolutionists regurgitate the Enlightenment era delusion of the faith/reason dichotomy. It's getting a little old. We all use faith. Get over it already. Science is based on a huge amount of faith at all sorts of levels.
I'm not sure if you ever got an answer to this from anyone else. It's a very good question, I think. But it's also a bit misleading in that I never said that it was. This thread is about the article by Sewell, and I think he makes the argument himself better than I could.
My point on this thread was to refute those idiots who blather on about antievolutionists supposedly not understanding SLoT or accusing anyone who claims there is a SLoT challenge to Naturalism is an idiot. Just look at the literature out there and you'll see that the whole question of how the SLoT applies to the biological world is a matter of serious ongoing investigation.
My argument is NOT that "SLoT proves evolution is false" but rather that "People who claim that there is not and never has been a SLoT challenge to Naturalism worthy of serious study by highly qualified scientists are either ignorant of scientific history or bald faced liars".
So all your side would need to do to kill this whole thread is to say: "You know what; you guys raise an interesting challenge, but I think it's been met with the following response....". But because you are all ideological fanatics, not objective scientists, you just can't seem to bring yourselves to say that.
Which takes me to my more basic argument which is NOT that evolution is false, but that evolution is primarily perpetuated as a presuppositional ideology, not as an evidentiary scientific discipline.
I love the way his first few paragraphs consist almost entirely of insults and innuendo, and then at the end he whines about how the ID people have been mean to him.
And an evolutionist accusing people of misrepresenting facts!!! I'll try to get past the surreal reality inversion and see if he has any actual arguments in the morning.
I didn't get one from you either, and I won't get one at all. It's a rhetorical question. The thermodynamic properties of evolution are the same as those for life. If life doesn't violate the 2nd law, then evolution doesn't.
There's a slightly stronger case for problems with abiogenesis. Darwinian evolution won't get life started, at least we haven't figured out how.
But there is no 2nd law barrier to abiogenesis; we see many organic compounds in deep space. The question is how they get put together into the first replicator. If you want to believe this was a miracle, I can't argue against you.
Yet.
What's that supposed to mean? I explained exactly why you hadn't gotten one from me: because I had not made that argument!
The thermodynamic properties of evolution are the same as those for life. If life doesn't violate the 2nd law, then evolution doesn't.
Oh, really? Is this yet another example of evolutionists assuming their conclusion thus not requiring any evidence? Me, just speaking personally, I prefer to investigate evidence and see where that points. Just a personal preference, mind you.
So you are saying that there is no meaningful entropic distinction to be drawn between the process whereby a fertilized embryo develops into a living adult, and eventually a dead adult and the process whereby a self-replicating bunch of proteins developed into the full set of living beings on the earth today, with 747s, computers, New York City, etc. None at all? There's no increase in information/"order"/complexity? Perhaps, I still have to brush up on my understanding of Shannon, informational entropy, and that sort of stuff.
But there is no 2nd law barrier to abiogenesis; we see many organic compounds in deep space. The question is how they get put together into the first replicator. If you want to believe this was a miracle, I can't argue against you.
So because we find organic compounds distributed around in deep space suddenly there's no entropic problem with them spontaneously orgnazing themselves into a self-replicating "living" organism? Please. There's no increase in information?
I think you need to distinguish between those things you accept on faith and those you can demostrate scientifically.
Tell me what process assumed by evolution violates the 2nd Law. Be specific. Mutation, selection, whatever. The evidence has been around for decades. Every phenomenon required to make evolution possible can be observed. Name one that can't.
Ahh.... there you go again: I've already stated I don't know how many times that I am not stating that a process of evolution violates the 2nd Law; I'm stating that when you people claim there is not even an issue worthy of scientific inquiry you are ignorant or lying.
That said, I think the concern is that random mutations resulting in an increase in information in the genome would appear, at least intuitively, as a spontaneous increase in complexity, order, and -- more importantly -- a decrease in entropy.
Some person has an interesting discussion of this here: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ukatheist/articles/complexity.htm. This guy is on your side, but interestingly, he does seem to take the question seriously (!!!), and the scientific counterexamples he cites are from 1996 and 1998. Using the old math, this does not qualify as 'decades'. I'm not familiar with the experiments yet, so can't comment on them. But you will notice that evolutionists have been claiming the argument is stupid before this apparent evidence existed, suggesting that the assertion was one of faith at least up until that time.
Also, by your standards, this guy is an atheist activist and has an agenda so should probably be disregarded.
Anyway, he claims that information theory requires an increase in genomic complexity as inevitable, which is a little curious.
Also, he claims there is no connection between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy, which I believe is false.
Moreover, your original assertion was that there was no process involved in evolution that was different in kind from those processes involved in life itself. As this writer recognizes, the increase in information in the genome involved in evolution is precisely that difference. Even if it can be explained, at least in a non-quantitative manner, your original assertion would appear to be falsified.
"...Since both of you seem to be well equipped to discuss the 2LoT and abiogenesis, could you explain how the 2LoT prevents the formation of biotic molecules from prebiotic molecules?"
b_sharp,
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with 2LoT and abgiogenesis. Perhaps you're pointing to an argument that provides me with the explanation that -- as a layman in this field -- I'm looking for.
Again, I claim no expertise. I'm just expressing a wish for some good, concise explanation from the evo side regarding the 2nd Law of Thermo.
Respectfully,
-- Joe
I'm not sure if this was in any way directed in my direction, but if I may be permitted to answer from the other side, it is my experience that evolutionists are exceedingly reluctant to do any positive science in this regard unless they are dragged kicking and screaming.
Their only contributions seem to be preaching-to-the-choir half answers to creationist or other skeptic objections. As the non-evolutionist arguments get more sophisticated, occasionally they add a level of sophistication to their rebuttal.
Most of the time they just accuse creationists of misunderstanding the SLoT or confusing entropy with disorder, or blathering that SLoT only applies to closed systems.
I did happen to come across a recent paper -- darned if I can find it again -- by a scientist who actually developed a complex and _quantitative_ computer model of the information/entropy in a simple set of self-replicating proteins (forget the details) experiencing evolution. At the beginning of his paper he stated that THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!!!!!! (Anyway, that's post-abiogenesis, so not quite relevant to your question.)
The talkorigins contribution to this topic seems to consist entirely of refuting some probabilistic calculations of abiogenesis based on the observation that these creationist attempts to evaluate abiogenesis quantitatively were stupid because .... there was really no viable theory of abiogenesis for them to evaluate. Quite the defence!!!
LOL, I'm sure if this expert in thermodynamics agreed with you insane darwin types, you would pour praises on him.but since he is a creationist, you use a democratic type slur campaign.
Is the author trying to say then that a given DNA molecule can't have a lower entropy than a DNA molecule in its parent, due to thermodynamic grounds? Um, ok.
Good Lord, I've heard some wacky creationist arguments before, but the argument this author promulgates is way off the deep end. Maybe this mathematics professor should take a physics class or two before writing a book about it.
My understanding of the suit is that since the ID guys had no "peer reviewed" articles that had been properly published in a proper scientific journal, nothing they had to say carried any weight and was summarily thrown out.
Since the Theory of Evolution has been extensively "peer reviewed" it carries so much weight that nothing stated to be covered by the accepted theory is to be questioned.
Is that about what the ruling said?
Well along that line, I asked for a link to a "peer reviewed" article or study explaining the proper scientific explation concerning eyes. I use eyes because they are a quite complex organ. Further, eyes in all vertibrates are essentially the same design (if I may use the word.) and there are massive differences in the species that have eyes.
My request is for a "peer reviewed" and "acceptable, published" article or study, or series of studies that show how they originated, and how they were inherited by all these species that apperantly have no evolutionary connection.
Show by the "accepted scientific" showing all the links from the first species that had eyes of the design that has been inhereted by all these various species.
If your answer is that everyone already knows this and no showing is necessary, I will understand that "science" contains the necessary statements of belief to satisfy all the true believers. Any skeptics may be freely insulted.
I'm not sure which author you are referring to. The segment you quoted from me was an author who is anything but a creationist; but he did recognize that the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, in this case informational entropy as developed by Shannon, required that you have to account for a spontaneous increase in information, in this case the genome.
I'm sorry if you find the fundamental, inviolable laws of the physical world to be "wacky".
The second part of your comment appears to refer to the Dr. Sewell, who is a professor of mathematics. All the laws of physics he cited are universally accepted, as I understand it, though there is ongoing debate about the exact relationship between concepts of order, which is not formally defined, and entropy, which is more formally defined. Many physicists, you will find, are quite comfortable equating the two for most practical work.
I don't know what field of study you are from, but I find it quite humorous to urge a mathemetician to take a course in physics. Physics, for all intents and purposes, is applied mathematics. That's almost as funny as the person who chided a biochemist for not being equipped to comment on biology.
If you have a specific, concrete point to raise, feel free to go ahead and do it. I will email it to Dr. Sewell myself. And I'll email Wiley to find out how their physicist editors missed it.
Yes, I have three specific questions:
1) Exactly what supposed step in evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? No sweeping generalizations here, how about a specific description or example of where the entropy of a chemical/biological system must have had increased beyond the limits of what is allowed by the influx of sunlight & geothermal energy in order for the evolutionary model to work, and the specific process(es) that violate thermodynamic laws?
2) How is it that evolution broke the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the distant past, yet we observe evolution occurring today, just as it always has?
3) Such 'discoveries' as evolutionary steps surely amount to a revolution in thermodynamic physics. What refereed physics journals (Phys. Rev. Lett., etc.) has Sewell submitted his amazing discoveries to? Surely such a great breakthrough in physics is worthy of being published in an esteemed journal, not just consumption by the general populace, unless he's just trying to rake in a quick buck at the expense of scientific literacy.
Sorry, but the tendency of intermediate thermodynamic systems to come to order when the flow of heat or other energy passes through them from a source to a sink is a commonly observed phenomenon in physics. It occurs in systems as simple as groups of identical protons under the right circumstances. The notion that a series of stochastic processes in such a relatively minute part of the earth-sun system somehow violates a fundamental law of physics is completely ridiculous. You can't hand-wave thermodynamics, you need known boundary conditions on the physical system being evaluated. I would expect a mathematician to know that.
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.