I thought it was already clarified that the entropy decrease of the biosphere was accounted for by the input of energy from the sun. Problem solved. First you argue that we can't look at a thermodynamic process in a net step because of the constituent systems that would be required to create order. Then, when I suggest looking at the constituent systems, you argue that you have to account for the net change. All thermodynamics can do is look at particular systems and account for the changes of entropy/thermal energy in those systems. If you define the system as the entire biosphere over the last 3.5 billion years, then the net energy input and entropy change is all you can look at. Clarify the system and its environment. Then thermodynamics can be done. Till then, it says nothing.
If you define the system correctly (a big if, perhaps), internal mechanisms within the system don't change the fact that you start with a certain state and end with a certain state, and if you have climbed a thermodynamic hill, as it were, you have to account for that.
What hill do you speak of? A net change in entropy? Energy input solves that issue. You're speaking very generally here, so a general answer is all that can be given.
Shannon's development of information theory and the application of thermodynamics and entropy to this area would seem to suggest that if you've got a spontaneous reduction in entropy you might want to try to explain it.
Which we try to do in biological systems, which are hard to mathematically define, even in the simplest such systems. A growing plant from a seed certainly results in a 'spontaneous' organization of matter. Are you saying this is a non-physical process, simply because we can't exactly define the parameters in thermodynamic terms? Similarly, you can't dismiss the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution just because we don't understand all the thermodynamic parameters. That is simply ridiculous. (The old we-don't-know-everything-so-we-know-nothing argument.)
You can call it "silly" all you want to try to see if a theory of biology is consistent with more fundamental laws of physics. I call it good science.
Of course it isn't silly to see this. There's just no good reason to suspect that any evolutionary process breaks the laws of thermodynamics.
Just throwing out hail-Mary speculation isn't enough.
Of course not. That's why evolutionary biologists don't try to make statements about thermodynamics that can't be quantified.
And I'm not qualified to critique each and every one of your claims you throw out after the previous one has been discredited.
What view held by mainstream science do you think it that has been discredited on this thread? I haven't seen one.
And yes, I'm telling you we don't see evolution occuring in modern time, at least not macro-evolution. Now you can post a link to some activist silliness on talkorigins.
Why would you dismiss a collection of scientific information ad hoc as 'activist silliness'? I hate to break this to you, but evolutionary biology happens to be a field with a wealth of scientific info supporting it. The evidence supporting macroevolution is well rooted in fossil evidence, morphological homology, genetic analysis and biogeography, but that's a different subject all together. All Talkorigins does is present information as supported by the mainstream science. You can dismiss any science that doesn't support the predetermined conclusions of creationism is 'activist silliness', or you could learn what it's about and why almost all professional scientists support such a robust theory.
He could publish it in a mathematics journal, or any journal on evolutionary biology, or even information theory, etc., etc. And he did.
He published in the Mathematical Intelligencer, I see, a journal which, in its own words, "welcomes expository articles on all kinds of mathematics and interdisciplinary trends, and articles that portray the diversity of mathematical communities and mathematical thought. Humor is welcome, as are puzzles, poetry, fiction, and of course art."
An exposition of how thermodynamics prevents evolution seems appropriate for the humor category, I can't see it belonging anywhere else. I don't know of a journal in evolutionary biology, biophysics, or anything else relevant in hard science that would touch this stuff with a 10-foot pole.
How about fiction which the journal explicitly welcomes and the author clearly provides.
Oh my goodness, we are back at the very beginning!!! Would it kill you at least to pretend to have "done the homework" before coming to class and opening your mouth??? Go back to the original article upon which this thread is based. Then read post #1. Follow the sequence of increasing integers after that.
Otherwise I guess this may be some sort of fundamental difference between how physicists and biologists view science. As long you sit in the corner drinking the KoolAid, surrounding yourself with like-minded ideologues, shouting down and laughing at every unorthodox point of view and view "science" as a project entirely devoted to shoring up what you already believe, you're going to be practising quackery.
It's apparent you are not even vaguely familiar with the arguments which you are attempting to rebut. Is that how science is done? Anyone can discredit a caricature. A fool can burn down a straw man. Where did you learn that this was called "science"? Evolution U? I'm not going to try to force-feed you knowledge. You're going to have to demonstrate a little bit of initiative on your own part here.
What view held by mainstream science do you think it that has been discredited on this thread? I haven't seen one.
No kidding, Sherlock!!! Once again, it's obvious you haven't even read this thread. How many times have I said that I, at least, have NEVER ATTEMPTED TO DISCREDIT A VIEW HELD BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. How on earth would a discussion on a website discredit a scientific viewpoint? Science isn't done in chatrooms, Einstein.
He published in the Mathematical Intelligencer,
I'd be willing to bet good money that the average poetry contributor to the MI has probably forgotten more physics then you'll ever know. This sort of schoolyard approach to science is part of the reason you are not taken seriously (outside the schoolyard).
The evidence supporting macroevolution is well rooted in fossil evidence, morphological homology, genetic analysis and biogeography, but that's a different subject all together.
Thank you for your little confession of faith. I'm quite familiar with it, thanks. I didn't realize you were personally familiar with all this evidence. Very interesting.
Also, while I'd be very happy to dismantle various contributions to TalkOrigins, I think that's outside the scope of this thread. I'd just like to know how many of their contributions you have personally validated, not from a cheerleading rah-rah point of view, but with an attitude of scientific skepticism. If the answer is none, then on what basis do you proclaim their legitimacy? Or is pro-evolution propaganda self-verifying?
Your entire argument seems to consist of the premise that there's not enough of an issue here worth spending any scientific effort on (thermodynamics/entropy and biological evolution). This is completely belied by the fact that numerous serious scientists have spent time and effort on these issues. I guess they didn't get the memo!
Why don't you go ask Wiley how many credentialed scientists have been willing to put their name on a letter providing a similar analysis to yours of the relevant section of Sewell's book! Clue: The answer rhymes with hero.