Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure

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

[Elsie]

Indeed, thou art Machiavellian.. ;o)

How DAST thou speak evil of a beloved (see Pat!) fellow congregant!
PH has stood the test of time, he indeed is an E of the highest magnitude and ONLY an E!

There is no need to parade as a misinformed (but lovable) C type!

---

--EvoDude

[Elsie]

That is why there is no vision in the deep, deep ocean. There was no evolutionary need for it.

Huh? Have you no knowledge of the lights that have EVOVLED on the deepsea creatures??? Their eyes work just FINE!!

(But them stupid cave fish DEVOVLED their eyeballs. Go figger!)

[Elsie]

I am a leaf on the wind

Come on: take a stand!

[Free Baptist]

Was that one of those mid-mounted engines? What did they call that? I had a 1974 Fiat 124 Sport. Terrible. They entropy in use after the first 10,000 miles.

[Elsie]

THERE!

THAT oughtta hold 'em a while!

[Elsie]

No, it isn't, but thanks for sharing your misunderstanding of biology with us.

You're dumb; we're not: end of story.

[Elsie]

The desire for such a comforting possibility is a strong incentive to believe that it is true, regardless of the poor evidence for it.

Then you have 'evidence' of poor evidence?

[Angry_White_Man_Syndrome]

The second law of thermo is science not math. It is one of the most important laws in physics. Evolution on the other hand is forging science with a bunch of assumptions. The second law of thermo debunks the assumptions.

[phantomworker]

Elsie, I like your tagline, but are you a TROLL?

[Elsie]

No, I don't, but thanks for sharing your ugly slurs with us -- it makes it quite clear to the lurkers who actually is driven by "contempt" here.

"I know what I am, but what are you?"

[GOPPachyderm]

I love the example of the snowflake as I live in Minnesota and see heaps of this 'nonrandom order' out my window right now. The nonrandom order creates evenly distributed blanket in my yard and sometimes becomes more even more ordered into snowmen, with the help of an intelligent designer, a four-year old boy.

Then at some point, it changes to yet another form as the snowman gradually becomes a part of my lawn and gardens. The order imposed by atmospheric conditions changes to another form of hydrogen and oxygen.

I rechecked Gerald Schroeders text and note that he did not use the word "always" reverts to disorder. My bad - my apologies to Mr. Schroeder. In fact, he notes that "Life beats the odds of chaos over cosmos, but not by defeating the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing does that. Life wins by OUTWITTING the second law."

I see the hand of a creator/intelligent designer. You see eons of time and feel it is appropriate to call people names. You indicate that creationists are "smug" but I think that is a case of Mr Kettle not recognizing similarities to Mr. Pot.

[Elsie]

And there is as much chance of Ichy understanding that as there was of the Pharisees understanding the Lord's parables.

Oh, they understood all right. That's why they wanted to kill Him!!!

[Stultis]

I really think you should study more; your questions border on insanity.

Well, permit me to try again. You referred to "the absolute truth of conflict between the laws of thermodynamics and evolution". So if the laws of thermodynamics conflict with evolution, even presumptively, let alone absolutely, then why doesn't life itself?

Surely the thermodynamic cost of, say, changing a DNA base pair cannot be greater than the thermodynamic cost of, say, creating a molecule of ATP (the cell's energy source). Yet a typical animal must create, what, millions?, billions?, trillions?, of ATP molecules every single hour. I don't know what the numbers are exactly, but surely in the space of hours a human has created more molecules of ATP than the number of DNA base pair differences that separate humans and chimpanzees.

Life overcomes entropy -- concentrates negative entropy -- in the first instance, prior to and apart from evolution. So how does evolution contradict thermodynamics without life itself doing so first?

[Elsie]

Most of them don't even speak English properly. Hey!

Justh cause we lisppst a bit is no reaston to rag on usth!

[Elsie]

I once knew a snake so poor that he didn't have a pit to hiss in.

[Angry_White_Man_Syndrome]

If people simply threw up their hands and gave up and said "Gee, God musta done it" regarding either the formation or tracks of tropical systems we wouldn't have the complex computer models that we have now that do a generally good and ever-improving job of forecasting them.

Just because people believe in God made it does not mean they will not try to figure out how.

[bobdsmith]

A one-time-event, of course, is NOT repeatable; but if E is as it is claimed: Science - then it CAN be verified. We C's merely ask that it be done.

It will eventually be possible to directly verify it when the technology is available. A number of hurdles are still in the way, but they could be jumped at any time. One main hurdle currently is the problem of deriving the protein shape produced by any given sequence of DNA.

Once such hurdles are overcome it will be possible to simulate the expression of genes on a computer. It will be possible for example to take a known gene and randomly alter it and see if that alteration is a valid gene. Imagine doing one million different alterations and counting how many of them produce valid genes, and then being able to determine how they differ. This will allow evolutionary pathways between different genes to be found, something that is currently outside the ability of technology and knowledge.

The long term goal would be to simulate the growth of entire organisms on a computer based on their DNA. The benefit of doing this on a computer rather than real life is that time is no longer a contraint. A fast enough computer could simulate one million generations of a population of bacteria in a matter of seconds for example.

[conservative barking moonbat]

"my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations"

No doubt a Best Seller. Looking forward to a Hannity interview.

ROFLMAO

[Angry_White_Man_Syndrome]

By this guys logic should we be running out of stuff to make new people with? But the population on earth continues to grow?
This statement shows your misunderstanding for physics. It is impossible to run out of "stuff." Mater can neither be created or destroyed.

[Elsie]

Do you use a random phrase generator? So many words to convey no content.

Cease and Desist!

As legal representative of the author of DILBERT, we have noticed that your post has a certain, shall we say, appearence of QUOTEMINING of a recently published creative work.

While quite possible that ideas can spontaneously form in separate minds, the timing in THIS instance is highly suspect.

In the future, you MUST give the REQUIRED credit where it is due.

---

Canwe, Sueem and Howe

Since 1893

---

---