Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure

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

[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. ...

[johnnyb_61820]

"Except ID claims the process is incapable of explaining the diversity of species, and rather some intelligence must have had to interfere in the process."

Incorrect. ID is perfectly compatible with a front-loaded evolutionary process. For example, you should see JA Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary hypothesis:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Davison_PrescribedEvolution_110804.pdf

ID is against atelic forms of evolution, specifically, the idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it. ID is compatible with the idea of "smart" cells that can adapt in complex ways to a changing environment.

It seems like perhaps you believe in ID, you just didn't know what it was and assumed it was equivalent with special creation. Note that it is compatible with special creation, but is also compatible with frontloaded evolution, and even somewhat with the ideas that evolutionary forms are coded within the laws of the universe. For an example of that, see Denton's paper, "The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law":

http://levee.wustl.edu/~spozgay/home/Denton,Marshall,Legge-Jour.Theo.Biol.2002.pdf

It seems that the problem that you have with ID is that you are misinformed as to what it is.

[johnnyb_61820]

"You assert that it is a circular dependency, but a DAG relationship (arguably the most common graph in nature, due in no small part to the laws of physics) will generate the exact same result."

In what way? The error-correcting mechanism _must_ be in place for the organism to survive at all. But that error-correcting mechanism is determined by the DNA itself. That is a cyclic, not acyclic, dependency. The DNA needs the enzymes, the enzymes need the DNA.

[Mark Felton]

What is so special about atoms?"

They are stable and form stable structures in space/time. Thus they are able to carry and retain information. Thus their domain can be "Turing Complete". They can deliver information to a reciever with some finite probability of reliability (information is sufficiently constitent as to be recognizable for some period of time, however small)

The problem between our current universe and the other disordered universes or homogenous/invariant universes, that arise from slight variations of the 6 fundamental cosmological constants, is that of information loss or lack of informational states.

I am talking about going from a universe with our current entropy to a universe that has no ability to hold information of any sort in space or time, other than the information of 1, that they exist.

An algorithm, or life, requires that at least a stable set of instructions may exist. There is no repeatability in the disordered universes. There is no ability to retain information, of any sort.

The homogenous and invariant universes are non-chaotic but have the opposite problem. They are universally homogenous with respect to matter and temperature. There is no energy flow from one point in space to another, thus there is nothing to be used to create or hold information. This is like making a computer (Turing machine) from a vacuum, empty space, or alternately making a computer from a homogeneous mass of hydrogen of uniform density.

There is no information because there are no predictable variations in any state in any volume no matter how small or how large. [Note: It is a criteria that life must spontaneously evolve from such homo

Life requires information to describe itself, and it requires such information be stable for a sufficient period of time that it be able to reproduce itself, or a similar facsimile. Further it functions by responding to external information (inputs) and modifying/producing such nformation (outputs).

In the disordered universes this cannot happen. Those universes are completely turbulent, and chaotic. There are no continuous, linear, differentiable surfaces or volumes.

In all volumes, no matter how small (as delta v tends to 0) information is not retained for any period of time (as delta t tends to 0).

Furthermore, for instance, take a black hole as one example of a state for a universe (1 large blak hole, nothing more) any information that is input into this universe from another universe, say, is destroyed. "Beam" a quantum system into this universe (described by eigenvalues and coefficients) and the information are converted to a singular thermal state (it is converted from wave function to a density matrix), which is even then rapidly lost as it is dispersed thoughout the universe from it's original input space. Thus a complex piece of information is reduced to a singular value of heat, and then dispersed spatially and even that single piece of information is lost. The process cannot be reversed and the information regained.

The only possibility for life is that the disordered universe (or homogeneous) include additional stable dimensions. Remember that D, dimensionality, was one of those 6 cosmological constants.

Life requires information stability of some degree, or requires that a number of different information states be possible. The disordered universes have no such stability and the homogeneous universes have no such variation of states. There is no possible "algorithms" that could exist, since information cannot be retained in any volume or time of the other universes.

[Timmy]

I don't have to feign humility in the presence of people who say the earth is flat. The argument from thermodynamics is decided. You don't need to be an expert.

If one has to "feign humility," one doesn't have it. Just because you think you are much smarter than those who differ from you doesn't mean you are. And I have yet to see an ID'er or Creationist who argues the earth is flat. When you make statements like the above, you are no different than Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, or Michael Moore. However, without humility, you fail to see it.

And I don't see how you can make the second part of your statement. I think I'd have to know your standing to decide that for us.

'Course, I expect you to come back that I'm just too stupid to understand it, right?

[js1138]

People who believe this should take a course in basic chemistry. The shape of any crystal is pre-determined by the bonding angle created by electron sharing in the molecule.

Does this apply to all crystals?

[johnnyb_61820]

"The only way any externally influenced phenotypic change can be passed on is if the phenotype change is due to a genotypic change in the gametes."

I don't know of any experiments off the top of my head, but my main point is that there is no reason to rule it out. We _know_ about heritable changes caused by the environment, and we _know_ about organismal changes caused by sensing predators. What about either process prevents the germline change from being genetic or even heritably epigenetic? Such things would explain the ability of species like the orchid to quickly make complex adaptations with the local insects.

[johnnyb_61820]

"But I meant a mainstream science peer reviewed journal."

Cell Biology International _is_ a mainstream peer-reviewed journal.

[js1138]

I would say that the tendency of creationists to think they have outsmarted all the working and published biologists, geologists, physicists and astronomers that ever lived indicates a lack of humility.

I admit that I do not have the background to argue this issue, but I do recognize stupid arguments when I see them being made. The first clue is that they misrepresent the opposing argument.

Take, for example, the statement that evolution of a new species requires identical, simultaneous mutations in a male and female mating pair. In order to post something like this you have to be so mind bogglingly ignorant of biology that anything else you might say is suspect.

When you see the same people post the same ignorant arguments week after week, month after month, it becomes a waste of time even reading their posts.

[Stultis]

I don't know of any experiments off the top of my head, but my main point is that there is no reason to rule it out.

Oh, Good God. This has gotten too ludicrous. YES, THERE IS EVER REASON TO "RULE IT OUT" that you can change the coats of goats from spotted to stripped (or whatever it was) in a single generation by showing their parents a bunch of sticks. Are you crazy?

[js1138]

This thread needs to be preserved in the museum of Haute ignorance. I have seen equally stupid threads, but seldom such a concentration of misapprehensions.

[jbloedow]

I don't have to feign humility in the presence of people who say the earth is flat.

No one is claiming the earth is flat. And to try to create some analogy is specious. And all you've been asked to do is show a little humility, or at least civility, towards well meaning people who hold different opinions than you on topics in which individuals more highly educated than you still differ.

The argument from thermodynamics is decided.

Then perhaps you can explain why a Mathematics PhD thinks otherwise, and why Wiley, one of the most respected science textbook publishers, published not only his textbook but also an appendix on this very topic????????

Perhaps you can send them an email asking them to consult with you -- and and Ichy-Dichy-Nine-Doors or whatever he calls himself -- on this topic before making any related publishing decisions. Do show us the response when you get it.... I'd pay cash money for that one.

Speaking of hilarious, maybe you can Ichy can tell Wiley where Sewell's "hilarious" mistakes are.

[js1138]

The main mistake is assuming that evolution involves some physical process that is qualitatively different from metabolism, growth, and development. The processes of life do not violate any laws of physics, but they can be described in ways that make them appear to violate thermodynamics.

Every process and mechanism postulated by and required by evolution has been observed, including favorable mutations. Denying this is equivalent to flat earthism.

The origin of life is a mystery, but evolution is well understood. Most of evolution does not involve increases or changes in overall complexity. The human genome is not larger or more complex than the Amoeba's.

[ml1954]

Cell Biology International _is_ a mainstream peer-reviewed journal.

The topic article of this thread (Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure by Granville Sewell) was not published in Cell Biology International.

[Mark Felton]

"I know when to say, "Gee, I don't KNOW... hmm." ",

But you know there is no God? For this you have proof?

I know when to say "I don't know" as well. As an engineer and a scientist I thrive in that condition. I constantly live at the edge of the unknown, that is why I study physics.

For 25 years I said "I don't know" about God. I was a half-hearted deist, bordering on the atheist.

2 years ago I learned something profound. Not only is God real but Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God. I learned this absolutely when I, as an experiment, asked Christ to show me He was real, and come into my heart. boom. I did not expect what happened. Nor did my wife who is/was a jewish mathematician. She broke down in tears, she had a real epiphany. The power/force/passion that erupted in us so suddenly with those words was profound for us.

Christ is as real as gravity. God does reveal Himself to those who would see, or just ask.

I suggest you ask. It cannot hurt and it can do you an eternity of good. (It is in fact illogical to not ask Christ into your life, as Charles Babbage said)

[jbloedow]

The topic article of this thread (Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure by Granville Sewell) was not published in Cell Biology International.

I'm not sure what was published in Cell Biology, but the topic article in this thread was published in a textbook by Wiley.

So what was the original point being made by the person who asked about whether or not this piece had been peer-reviewed? And are you willing to concede the point given that this piece has been published by a very prestigious science publisher? Or are you just going to blacklist and slander Wiley now?

If past can be said to be prologue, then one would have to assume the latter, no?

[b_sharp]

"Would you consider the American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal a peer-reviewed publication? What is your criteria?

Are you telling me this appendix (the focus of this thread) to his book has been published as an article in that journal?

[bobdsmith]

Incorrect. ID is perfectly compatible with a front-loaded evolutionary process. For example, you should see JA Davison's Prescribed Evolutionary hypothesis

I don't think such a process can be called evolutionary anymore than the metamorphosis of the butterfly is evolutionary, or indeed the growth of an egg into a full organism is. It is some form of programmed transmutation. I have no idea how much randomness vs determinism this davison fellow suggests is involved, but it sounds like randomness is almost totally ruled out as part of new species generation.

ID is against atelic forms of evolution, specifically, the idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it.

The evolutionary mechanism of random mutation and natural selection inspired the computer science field of evolutionary computation. Solutions to complex problems can be generated using the principles of mutation and selection in genetic algorithms and genetic programming. So random change and selection are capable of design. Evolution critics do not deny this, but level the charge that such algorithms are front-loaded by their designers.

I disagree with that assertion, but nontheless they see that darwinian evolution would be capable of design if it were front-loaded. What does front-loaded mean in this situtation? Well there are two critical parts of genetic algorithms to design:

1) A fitness function, which estimates how fit any given individual is.

2) A format for the genome that represents each individual.

Getting these two right is what makes or breaks the effectiveness of the algorithm to design a solution.

So if this is all the front-loading is then front-loaded biological evolution would simply involve designing a fitness function for life (which is redundant as it is inherent in nature - ie the fittest survives tautology), and a format for the genome that makes the algorithm effective.

Basically what I am getting at here is that a better and simpler explaination of front-loading exists than the one davison presents: The first single-celled lifeform on earth was intelligently designed in a way that allowed mutation and natural selection to produce the diversity of life we see today and in the fossil record. That is true evolutionary frontloading and is the position many theist evolutionists have.

Yes I know that the ID movement is against the "idea that random mutations and natural selection are sufficient to do it", but that is just downright suspicious as random mutations and natural selection are perfectly consistant as a front-loaded intelligently designed algorithm.

[Dan(9698)]

Please explain why people, chimps, gorillas, et al all have the **exact same** mutation, not found anywhere else, that prevents the synthesis of ascorbic acid.

There may well be some connection. The fact that you believe the connection is explained by your belief in Darwinism is an expression of your faith.

That is the definition of faith given by the Apostle Paul in the New Testiment, where he said faith is the hope for things not seen.

There is nothing wrong in using expressions of faith to explain things you cannot prove. I do it all the time.

[js1138]

I'm not sure what was published in Cell Biology, but the topic article in this thread was published in a textbook by Wiley.

So you will no doubt be able to quote from the textbook where it concludes that the 2nd Law precludes evolution.

[tortoise]

One question - is it safe to equate entropy with disorder?

No, definitely not. Disorder is an apparent characteristic of some systems in a high-entropy state, but this can be deceptive since humans have a very limited ability to discern high-order patterns from what is apparently a random environment. Common intuition is that humans can detect most simple high-order patterns, but this is not true in fact and humans ascribe randomness to a great many things with very simple finite descriptions.

The "disorder" and "complexity" definition is still the best layman's definitions for people who do not want to earn a degree in mathematics, but it is essentially a useful lie. The strict definition does not map well into the English language (or any other language I am aware of) and has essential properties not covered by the layman's terms.