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 ever made you think that all minerals are inorganic? And why is "organic energy" required? Have you ever done analytical chemistry on rocks? Have you ever looked up the various odd inorganic chemicals some species of bacteria can metabolize?
Do you do any research at all before you post?
Sure. Put a stake off Cape Cod, check back in a couple million years, and measure the drift with a tape measure. : )
"As for the existence of electrons, neutrons, protons, neutrinos, etc., we can formulate experiements to test theories about the existence of all of those."
And we do the same with evolution (although the hecklers invariably shout "microevolution" and "the experiment was designed").
I understood your objection to be the lack of eyewitnesses to long-durational speciation events, i.e., no one was there to "see" it, so there's no proof it happened. To the extent this is, in fact, your objection, it's groundless. There's a whole lot of science that is premised on inference from circumstantial evidence (and a whole lot of criminals in jail based on the same inferential process).
". . . the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted." [Genesis 30:39]
This is not so far fetched. We already know that animals can sense predators in the area, and such sensing will cause phenotypic changes in their offspring. I don't think that it would be too out-of-touch to propose that visual senses can contribute to this as well, and to think that like other senses, it can be tricked to produce specific sensation and response.
Umm, the universe is not infinite, is it is finite, and the we are not talking about eternity, but a finite amount of time. Given these two constraints, the odds are against the complexity of all life arising out of random processes.
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
The second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganising into a computer full stop. This is true whether or not random and redundant senarios are introduced such rusting, rooms and open doors. The only use for the above analogy is as a reminder of why analogies are one of the worst forms of argument.
This is pure tripe. How can anyone defend this nonsense? It's not even internally consistant. Seeing as auto-parts and computer chips DID arise on Earth and certainly didn't "come through the atmosphere" (?!!), then is he saying their origin is a violation of the second law?
Finally, I am well aware that logic and evidence are powerless against the popular perception, nurtured by prestigious journals such as National Geographic and Nature
No seriously he actually wrote this. National Geographic is a prestigious journal. Check the article if you don't believe me. Honest, im not kidding. I haven't made this up - it's in the article - it's really in there.
According to this hilarious misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it's impossible for a mighty oak tree grow out of a tiny acorn.
There's nothing hypocritical about it. (Nor is it only "left-wing nuts" who are concerned about extinctions.) This misguided accusation comes up frequently, but I fail to understand why, because it makes no sense. Did all of you read it in the same pamphlet or something?
I think if you really, really, really tried, you could probably figure out why because, actually, ya, it does make a little bit of sense to people who haven't all read the same pamphlet. You just have to think about it. It may or may not be correct, but it certainly makes some sense.
Because humanity's goals are different from nature's processes. Floods are natural too, but that doesn't mean *we* need to appreciate New Orleans being underwater.
Um, all your examples are of phenomena which directly effect human beings. Now if you want to argue that the extinction of a species effects human beings, and therefore we should care about it, fine, make that argument. But there is obviously no analogue between events that lead to the (mass) death of other species and events that lead to the (mass) death of humans.
Your subsequent points were pedantic and repetitive, so I'll skip them.
In any case, what's your point here? Pandas were doing fine for millions of years until humans screwed up their successful lifestyle. Labeling pandas "unfit" because they don't do well in captivity...It also ignores my point that letting the panda slide into extinction because of *manmade* destruction of its habitat and poaching of its members would hardly be "letting nature take its course"...
Hmm... very interesting. So are you arguing that "Man" is somehow outside of nature? That we occupy some special "super-natural" or at least "extra-natural" niche in the universe of living things? Fascinating. Who put us there? If not, how is it that the Giant Panda's evolutionary "fitness" is a function of its total survival and reproductive capabilities with respect to its total environment with some sort of special exemption for the impact of humans, which is somehow not part of its fitness? Please explain this one.
The larger point, I believe, is that the onus is on evolutionists to explain why there is some non-arbitrary moral value to the existence of a particular species. Even the notion of a species, surely, is a human abstraction, since all living organisms are really part of a vast genetic continuum, right? And was there some moral deficit before that species evolved? Did this moral grid exist before humans evolved, or did it evolve with us?
That's probably enough questions for you for now.
In the cases of the Oak Tree and the Acorn, or the computer chips, you have a program which is directing/localizing the entropy losses and gains. Without the program, the entropy losses available are statistically small. It is the program that allows the large localized entropy losses.
This is precisely what intelligent agents do -- they create order out of chaotic systems.
That's a rear engine I think. Iuse to have allot of fun in the x19. For a mid engine see www.lotusespritworld.com. These are REALLY fun to drive.
" Sure. Put a stake off Cape Cod, check back in a couple million years, and measure the drift with a tape measure. : )"
You are sorely confused. For example, the continental drift is measurable at about one inch per year for the Atlantic Ocean.
"I understood your objection to be the lack of eyewitnesses to long-durational speciation events, i.e., no one was there to "see" it, so there's no proof it happened."
The experiements that can be re-created show the classical scientific process -- these are duplicatable, verifiable, and falsifiable. Outside of these experiments Evolution can make suppositions but no real theoretical assertions. IOW, if someone claims that two animals have a common ancestor because of similarities, this is merely a supposition, not a statement of provable fact.
"To the extent this is, in fact, your objection, it's groundless. There's a whole lot of science that is premised on inference from circumstantial evidence (and a whole lot of criminals in jail based on the same inferential process)."
Interesting. I thought we were dealing with cold, hard, provable science. Now I realize by your admission that the Evos are not scientists, they are actually detectives. The rule of law has a much lower standard for declaring something as fact than science (at least science used to have a higher standard until it was co-opted). Law never requires proof which is repeatable and able to be falsified.
Add to that list evolution and you will see why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law either.
The existance of neutrinos, etc are not theories, they are predictions of a theory. Evolution also makes predictions which can be tested, and which are repeatable and falsifiable. All scientific theories, historical or not, including evolution, are based on observations and then formulating theories to explain those observations. Theories are not provable, certainly not in an absolute sense of the word. In fact I would say that the term "scientific proof" in reference to theories is kind of misleading.
Interesting. I thought we were dealing with cold, hard, provable science. Now I realize by your admission that the Evos are not scientists, they are actually detectives
The past existance of the dinosaurs is based on "inference from circumstantial evidence". Is that not science?
Seen any "phlogiston" lately? Have you bled your kids to relieve them of evil humours causing fevers, Theodoric? Has a Piltdown Man crossed your path of late? Don't preach to me about hokum, chap. Science is a "diversion" from important things and filled with as many wonderments as any verse you might cherry pick submit from the Bible, Dr. Hwang, stem cell provider extraordinaire.
Frank
PS I am neither a creationist nor a literalist. Roman Catholicism is fully open to evolution as one possible basis for man's existence. I am not a Darwinist, however, worshipping a secular religion that was advanced by Huxley.
I concede. Science is both irrelevant and a universal fraud. I will immediately throw away my computer, attempt to purge my system of flu vaccine, refuse to ever visit a doctor again or take any medications, eliminate all synthetic materials from my presence, put the evil genetically enhanced fruits and vegetables in the grocery store behind me, and make every effort to return to the wondrous days of yore when the volcano gods were worshiped and life was properly brutish, short, miserable, and rife with ignorance.
"Evolution also makes predictions which can be tested, and which are repeatable and falsifiable."
Transitional fossils. It's laughable to think that there would be a way to test/falsify those.
" The past existance of the dinosaurs is based on "inference from circumstantial evidence". Is that not science?"
It's science in the sense that what can be observed infers things. Dinosaur bones make obvious statements about creatures that lived in the past, their size, their teeth, the shape of their bones.
But there are all sorts of silly suppositions stated as fact where there really are no facts. Like the drawings of prehistoric creatures which show the type of skin or fur that they have. We had textbooks in school which showed drawings of what creatures looked like when there was no evidence for their outward appearance anywhere.
Well, if you're NOT certified as the smartest living human, would it hurt to conduct your debates with a little humility and courtesy? I think it would make the whole thing more enjoyable for everyone, including you. Thanks.
Based on your thoughtful response (seriously), then it seems a fair discussion to have. Thanks.
That was a joke. Hence that stupid little smiley face. And what you are referring to is clearly micro-drift. Where's the proof of this supposed macro-drift that happened over millions of years? Who was there to see that? Where are the eyewitnesses? : ) (see, there it is again)
Interesting. I thought we were dealing with cold, hard, provable science. Now I realize by your admission that the Evos are not scientists, they are actually detectives.
Heaven help us! Scientists making observations? Doing field research? Discerning patterns and making inferences? Acting like detectives? How dare they do that. Why, we all know that scientists wear white smocks and do experiments in laboratories . . . on stuff . . . with bunsen burners.
Similarities in DNA prove common ancestry. Ask any family court judge.
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.