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 ...
Researchers at the Raleigh Institute near Manchester, England, announced that the monkeys in their lab produced a perfect version of "Romeo and Juliet."
"We've been holding our breath for weeks," says Alan Ripshaw, the researcher in charge of the Monkey Project. "We knew the monkeys were getting close, but we've had a number of false starts.
"One time they got to the fourth act of Macbeth, before making a mistake. The monkeys also recently typed out a Norman Mailer novel, but that doesn't count."
Ripshaw says he began the project because he was intrigued with the controversy over whether Shakespeare really was the author of the plays bearing his name.
"Some scholars think Bacon was the real author," Ripshaw says. "That's when I had the thought, 'What if they were written by monkeys?'
Ripshaw assembled 5,000 monkeys and an equal number of typewriters. The monkeys were rewarded with bananas every time they filled up a page with letters.
"Ninety-nine percent of it was nonsense," Ripshaw says. "But one of the monkeys put up a blog on the Internet, and it has a big following."
But a researcher making a final check says the monkeys made a mistake. "In one reference, they spelled 'Romeo,' 'Romero.'"
Says Ripshaw, "I guess it's back to the drawing board."
-- JAKE ANDERSON of the Weekly World News
Yes, thanks.
Your stubborn ignorance transcends my patience (yes, I know, patience is a virtue, but do pigs wear pearls?)
Nor do I need 7 million, I need only one. It is anthropic argument - since I am around and see it - I have won. Other 6999999 are irrelevant and could [and should] fall through some cracks, so as not to spoil the view from my window. And the view from my window is predicated on my having won, with probability 1.000.
Exactly. If Sewell had fully developed any of his points the essay might have been worth reading (even if still false:) Anyway, tell it to The American Spectator. They published it.
Neither did they give proper credit to Rosalind Franklin after stealing her early work on DNA . . .
Are we to assume that information is pre-existing in that 8-bit machine?
One of the problems with discussions such as the present one is that the parties do not take the trouble to provide a clear and unambiguous statement of what they mean by the "Second Law."
That's a good reason. Thank you.
You wrote: "So, how do your "probability calculations" allow for you to exist when the probability is infinitesimally small?"
"A question like that could only come from one too lazy to study God's word sufficiently to understand it, and to take recognition of the massive amount of numeric evidence in the word to prove that only God could be it's author.
"You have made yourself, intellectually speaking, a pool of frozen 'primordial soup.' (mud)"
Reply:
Laughing out loud. In fact, ROTFLOL. This is a keeper.
Your post is the perfect demonstration that ID has nothing to do with science and is all about "proof of God" and {poofs}. This is exactly why ID has failed.
Actually, I am quite happy that our species evolved and that I am here to enjoy the pleasures thereof.
" You cannot make a silk purse from a white man's ear.." (The Master of Sinanju)
Nothing to do with the topic, your statement just reminded me of " The Destroyer " series of pulp novels..
Problem is, we haven't found a way to tell them, so they just keep buzzin' along..
How about an evaluation of what Darwin said as quoted in post 116?
He started a Religeon of psudo science. Professors are preaching it still.
Yes, they did..
They not only gave her credit, she wrote an accompanying article that appeared in the very same issue of Nature as theirs.. (Crick and Watson)
The allusion that she was not recognized is a bunch of feminist BS..
You posted: "Your stubborn ignorance transcends my patience (yes, I know, patience is a virtue, but do pigs wear pearls?)"
Reply:
I am not into dietary laws about pork, but I do recall
Proverbs: 26:5. "Answer a fool according to his folly."
A contradiction is in Proverbs 26:4. "Answer NOT a fool according to his folly."
At least one of us is violating Scriptural injunctions. Maybe me.
He started a Religeon of psudo science. Professors are preaching it still.
Post 116
The probability is 1.0 IF you don't rule out things, such as intelligent design. Your proposition is, as I assume you know, a tautology.
No, I have no trouble with the world being complex. I just find it impossible to explain by Darwin's rules.
That isn't a tautology! What do you mean? And a Religeon of psudo science? That's not a religion. Don't understand what you mean?
Sorry, wrong reference. It should be post 119
I'll take "Guns" for 100, Alex..
You posted: "It's mathematically impossible for bees to fly..
Problem is, we haven't found a way to tell them, so they just keep buzzin' along.."
Reply:
If you were a bit more informed, you would know that the tale refers to bumblebees, not all bees.
And you make my point perfectly. Predictions that evolution could not have occurred, predictions that bumblebees cannot fly, predictions that the mammalian immune system could not exist, etc., etc. are all equally disproved by the evidence. It is an observable fact that evolution has occurred; it is a theory as to how and why this came about.
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.