|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2004 : 14:25:03 [Permalink]
|
You guys tend to be asking me questions that take books to answer. :0)
Starman:
*********1 How is Darwinism in conflict with thermodynamics?*********
The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1
*******2 How does thermodynamics give ID support?********
ID predicts that objects will disorder. So does the second law.
Filthy:
******Actually, it does. Science has no way to test the metaphysical, therefore does not deal with it.*******
You feel that quantum mechanics is metaphysics? I would disagree with this.
*********I do not pretend to understand anything about quantum physics. I think that there is a great deal, indeed a staggering amount yet to be learned. However, I have yet to see anything in support of ID in the referenced writing, or any other thus far.********
You will see the writing in this thread as I present science, math and logic that will cause you to think. ID is very young in this present form and since it is, it would be fully expected not to have a lot written on the subject. Most main-stream scientists do not even know what it is. I see this on this very forum.
But on this subject, if you will digest Tipler's Omega Point, this will partially explain the philosophy behind ID for you. Understanding that it's quite plausible, scientifically, for there to be an observer in this universe fully explained by science allows one to draw their own conclusion about gods. This observer could be viewed as Allah, Jehovah, Christ, Krishna, or an atheist or agnostic could fully accept this only as quantum mechanics. One size fits all, so to speak. ;)
As to your comments on the Wedge, I do not support these people as they are largely religionists. Please do not think that every IDist has the same view of these people. They are a small but quite vocal minority. Hopefully a book I have coming out in Feb. will quash some of that stuff.
furshur:
I will try not to be redundant in my replies. I feel your first two points are answered above:
*****I think that a case for UD (unitelligent design) would be easier to make based on the number of extinct species. How many millions of years and millions of "failed attempts" must be made, untill Man (the final product) was 'perfected'. If there was a 'designer' with that track record I sure as hell wouldn't hire him.******
Actually the fact that 98% of the species found in the fossil record are extinct is a central tenet of ID in that the field predicts disorder in the genome until extinction occurs via mutational meltdown along with other reasons, of course.
But, sorry. I don't know anything about designers. The designer could have been a deity, an astronaut or your Uncle Frank. There is no scientific evidence that would point toward an identity of a designer. Thus we don't go there.
*******Give me a break! ID is creationism in sheeps clothing.*******
Either you believe everything you read or this is your personal opinion. You are welcome to have those, but in this particular case, it would be wrong. ;)
*******Anyway welcome again - and I hope that you present some evidence for ID so the discussion can proceed to specifics. *******
You guys seem quite capable of asking the right questions. Please keep in mind that this subject is very deep and I cannot address everything in just a few sentences.
********If there was a huge wall and only 2 gates to go through and you sent a vast herd of zebra through those gates - I can guarantee that each zebra will either go through one or the other gate, an individual zebra will never go through both gates at the same time regardless of the how they are observed.********
Zebras do not apply to the universe. Quantum mechanics do. If you can overcome Tipler's math, then the Omega Point becomes refuted. But if you do, you will be the first. ;)
chaloobi:
*******BTW - ID is religion. 'Design' implies 'desinger' and 'designer' is just another word for 'creator.'******
Although one might imply the other, design does not necessarily lead to an identification of a designer. Design, is a different subject than designer. I can drive my car just fine without knowing the name of the designer. I can use my hair dryer and vacuum cleaner just fine without knowing who the design engineer was.
To confuse these two terms would be similar to one starting out to write a manual on chainsaw operation and repair and to become so confused on the issue that he ends up with a biography of the chainsaw design engineer.
Siberia:
I'm afraid you are confusing ID with creationism. Creationism studies a creator and a creation. ID does not deal with creators or creations, unless perhaps one chooses to view the Cambrian explosion in that vein.
Dude:
******a. ID is not science. Real science is testable and verifiable. Until you can provide some examples of testable/verifiable evidence to support ID, then you can't call it science. Quoting people with degrees who have "converted" doesn't count.*******
Well, I don't recall quoting anyone with degrees that have converted. ID is science because it studies physics, biology and chemistry which is science. There is no separate 'ID biology' as some seem to thing. But I take it you are asking me for empirical evidence to support ID? Might as well give some to the forum up front. What in science supports ID?
1) The fossil record.
2) The fact that the building blocks of life DNA and RNA must be designed by preprogrammed code inside an organism.
3) The fact that complex homochiral proteins must be designed by preprogrammed code inside an organism.
3) The existence of complex specified information in designed systems.
4) The existence of irreducibly complex systems that must be designed.
5) The fact that complex symbiotic systems that must be designed yet they are found in nature.
6) The fact that comparison studies show certain biological systems designed such as certain flagella and ATP machines.
7) the fact that redundant systems must be designed yet are found in nature.
8) The fact that function is an intelligently assigned property, yet is found in nature.
That should keep you guys busy for awhile. <:0) I will go through each of those one by one as requested. But if I get 8 different asking for a clarification of every one of those at the same time, you may have to wait in line.
*******d. ALL of the major proponents of ID (that I'm aware of) have a religious (usually fundamentalist evangelical) background.********
I'm trying to address all the relevant posts, thus I'm leaving out the redundant points. This logic does not follow the scientific method in that is it induction. Just because all the geese you have seen are white does not extrapolate into therefore, all geese in existence are white. Finally, your comments on degrees are irrelevant because this would just be the argument from authority should I go there, a logical fallacy. Finally, I never said I don't have any degrees, I stated I did not have one in ID as there is as of yet no such thing. That will come.
astropin
Sheeze....I have other things to do occasionally......like....um.....sleep.
Thanks for the posts! |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 14:42:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You feel that quantum mechanics is metaphysics? I would disagree with this.
No, I think that god(s) are metaphysics, not to come out and say 'bullshit,' and it has yet to be demonstrated that these have anything to do with quantum anything.
Apparently, you are into a different sort of ID than Dembski, et al. Thus, I'm not sure of what you're talking about.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 14:57:02 [Permalink]
|
******No, I think that god(s) are metaphysics, not to come out and say 'bullshit,' and it has yet to be demonstrated that these have anything to do with quantum anything.******
Well, you seem to be wanting not to understand my point on this. Quantum mechanics is not metaphysics. But I didn't say that god's are not metaphysics. I just said that if one chooses to view the Omega Point as a particular god, then that is certainly logical. In that latter case one has left the realm of science to enter the realm of personal beliefs. Nothing wrong with that. Methodological naturalism does not prohibit religious beliefs. It just muses that we keep them from our test tubes as did Newton, Boyle, Pasteur and Faraday to name a few.
*******Apparently, you are into a different sort of ID than Dembski, et al. Thus, I'm not sure of what you're talking about.********
No, not really. But some of us have added to their work. The basics are still the same.
Questions: Is there a way to edit the mistakes out of my posts? Is the forum code UBB? |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:13:36 [Permalink]
|
JerryB wrote:
quote:
*********1 How is Darwinism in conflict with thermodynamics?*********
The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1
*******2 How does thermodynamics give ID support?********
ID predicts that objects will disorder. So does the second law.
You conveniently left out that the 2nd law only applies to closed systems.
The earth is not a closed system, absorbing energy from the sun and radiating energy back into space, so a decrease in "disorder" for the earth as a whole is not in conflict with the 2nd law. Evolution does not violate the 2nd law, because it allows local decreases in entropy, as long as the total entropy of the closed system increases. If the overall entropy of the universe increases, the process can proceed.
From:
http://electron4.phys.utk.edu/141/nov19/November%2019.html
quote:
When water freezes its entropy decreases. This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The second law does not say that entropy can never decrease anywhere. It just says that the total entropy of the universe can never decrease. Entropy can decrease somewhere, provided it increases somewhere else by at least as much. The entropy of a system decreases only when it interacts with some other system whose entropy increases in the process. That is the law.
Here's an application to a biological system:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/bioentropy.html#c1
The "disorder" argument is a red flag that there is a basic lack of understanding of thermodynamics behind the argument. You don't need a degree to understand this, all you need to do is read a book or do some research before making a claim. I happen to have a degree which required many hours of study in thermodynamics, and work in an industry where it is applied daily. You are going to have to supply some very good references to convince me that your entropy argument is valid.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:13:59 [Permalink]
|
Ricky:
*******We have a hypothesis!!! And even more than that, we have a hypothesis that has been tested and found to be false. Over the last thousand years, humans have been becoming stronger. We have been growing larger. We have been living longer. Heck, every other year, Olympic records are always being broken. Doesn't sound like a whole system going to disorder or mutational meltdown to me. Sounds to me like it is improving.*******
Actually we have more than 1 hypothesis. But your assertion that humans have become stronger is irrelevant. Science shows a disordering genome in homo sapiens.
This study by UK evolutionary biologists Eyre-Walker and Keightly show an average increase in deleterious mutations of 1.6 per generation on average.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v397/
n6717/abs/397344a0_fs.html&dynoptions=doi1089191389
********Please explain how the fossil record supports ID and what the heck do you mean by 8?*******
I could go to the old quote mine but probably not necessary. Suffice it to say that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis interspersed with intense bursts of new speciations. These critters come into the record fully formed and ready to go in their environment. The fossil record supports the design concept and no other concept of origins.
In ID, function is defined as object A effects object B. I can use a rock to hammer a nail if I choose to do so. And if I do I have assigned the function of a hammer to that rock. In fact, that definition is not uncommon outside of ID:
Function: "The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed.
Assigned duty or activity."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Function |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 15:27:02 [Permalink]
|
*********You conveniently left out that the 2nd law only applies to closed systems.
The earth is not a closed system, absorbing energy from the sun and radiating energy back into space, so a decrease in "disorder" for the earth as a whole is not in conflict with the 2nd law. Evolution does not violate the 2nd law, because it allows local decreases in entropy, as long as the total entropy of the closed system increases. If the overall entropy of the universe increases, the process can proceed.***********
This is simply false, I'm afraid, but don't feel bad because this is a very common confusion on the part of those who did not actually study thermodynamics in physical chemistry classes. Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize for his work in open system thermodynamics. Schrodinger, Gibbs and many others have studied thermo in the human body. Human bodies are very open systems.
SLOT applies equally to open, closed and isolated systems. The math is just different. And I agree that entropy can decrease in open and closed systems, but not in isolated ones. Would you care to see this mathematically?
********The "disorder" argument is a red flag that there is a basic lack of understanding of thermodynamics behind the argument. You don't need a degree to understand this, all you need to do is read a book or do some research before making a claim. I happen to have a degree which required many hours of study in thermodynamics, and work in an industry where it is applied daily. You are going to have to supply some very good references to convince me that your entropy argument is valid.********
I'm sorry, are these your words? I have a degree in chemistry, by the way, with a minor in biology. Not that this is important to my argument. But you guys seem to be quite fascinated with degrees and the like. I hate to break this to you, but I know some extremely stupid PhDs. <;0) |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 16:21:45 [Permalink]
|
******You seem to think that a background in science is not important to understanding science. Are these your words? He gave you a background so now you know where he is coming from. His is not some random person who read one line from a book about thermodymanics, he has spent many years in studying it and in a field which requires its constant application.*******
I really don't care if the person I'm discussing this with is a PhD or an 8th grade Jr. high school drop-out. An argument must stand on its own merit. To consider that just because a person has been formally schooled in a field that this person knows everything about that field and cannot be wrong is a logical fallacy.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Argument+from+authority
I thought I was extremely kind to him as he refuted his own argument in the same post. First he claimed that SLOT only applies to closed systems, then in the next paragraph he sent me to page to show how SLOT is used in biological systems--open systems. Now don't you think I was quite the gentleman in refraining from pointing that out?  |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 16:37:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could go to the old quote mine but probably not necessary. Suffice it to say that the fossil record shows long periods of stasis interspersed with intense bursts of new speciations. These critters come into the record fully formed and ready to go in their environment. The fossil record supports the design concept and no other concept of origins.
Does it indeed? There are no tranisitional fossils, say, from reptile to mammal, or fish to amphibian, then? All show up in their final, evolutionary stages?
I beg to differ.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 17:52:22 [Permalink]
|
JerryB wrote:quote:
I thought I was extremely kind to him as he refuted his own argument in the same post. First he claimed that SLOT only applies to closed systems, then in the next paragraph he sent me to page to show how SLOT is used in biological systems--open systems. Now don't you think I was quite the gentleman in refraining from pointing that out?
No, the part of SLOT which says that entropy must increase applies only to closed systems. The equations apply to any system, including those decreasing in entropy due to outside influences. But, since you're busy committing the logical fallacy of "equivocation," by equating the term 'entropy' (a specific thermodynamics term meaning "energy available for work") with the term 'disorder' (a non-specific term which is meaning-free to SLOT), people here have been pretty kind to you by not calling you an idiot - too much.
But, back to your previous writings...quote:
ID predicts that objects will disorder.
Reference this claim, please. What "researcher" of ID has published this prediction anywhere?
Okay, that was a trick question. Since ID has no research program whatsoever, there are no ID researchers at all. So seriously, who - besides you - has made the suggestion that ID predicts that "objects will disorder?"quote:
You will see the writing in this thread as I present science, math and logic that will cause you to think.
You haven't yet presented anything of the sort. You should stop dilly-dallying, and get on with it.quote:
ID is very young in this present form and since it is, it would be fully expected not to have a lot written on the subject.
False apologetics. There are many popular books about ID, both pro and con. There are entire web sites dedicated to discussing ID...
Hey, I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm betting that you're actually Jerry Don Bauer, who's posted to both ARN and to Panda's Thumb, and if so, you know quite well that there are tons of words about ID, but no testable predictions, no research proposals, and no science, but simply refuse to acknowledge it. (Also if so, I've read quite a bit of your "work" in this area. Thanks for dropping by. If I'm right, folks, this guy is like a savant version of verlch.)quote:
Most main-stream scientists do not even know what it is.
Nor do they care, because it is not science.quote:
I see this on this very forum.
While I'm flattered that you are comparing our membership here with scientists, I'm afraid you're confused about what you're seeing here. "ID" comes in many forms, from Dembski's "Glory of God" kind of ID all the way to whatever the hell it is that you will, with any luck, eventually detail for us. And because ID is so chimereal, the folks here talking about "it" should be forgiven from jumping from one possibility to the next.quote:
But on this subject, if you will digest Tipler's Omega Point, this will partially explain the philosophy behind ID for you. Understanding that it's quite plausible, scientifically, for there to be an observer in this universe fully explained by science allows one to draw their own conclusion about gods.
But the observer isn't necessary, and Tipler's argument is simply a misunderstanding of quantum principles. An "observer" does not necessarily have intelligence in quantum theory. To think that it does is metaphysical nonsense, not found within the math.quote:
If you can overcome Tipler's math, then the Omega Point becomes refuted. But if you do, you will be the first. ;)
Not at all. Refutations abound. Heck, Tipler even says that the math isn't the problem:After publishing his book, Tipler has admitted the possibility that acceleration could occur in the expanding phase of the universe and invalidate his calculations predicting a collapse. "If the observed acceleration were to continue forever, the Omega Point Theory would be refuted," he has said.
- Omega Point Theory One might also note the lack of wide research programs based upon Tipler's ideas.quote:
Actually the fact that 98% of the species found in the fossil record are extinct is a central tenet of ID in that the field predicts disorder in the genome until extinction occurs via mutational meltdown along with other reasons, of course.
Ah. So you've got fossil evidence that genome became disordered? How very, very interesting. I would like to see this evidence.quote:
But, sorry. I don't know anything about designers. The designer could have been a deity, an astronaut or your Uncle Frank. There is no scientific evidence that would point toward an identity of a designer. Thus we don't go there.
Then what is the point of ID?quote:
You guys seem quite capable of asking the right questions. Please keep in mind that this subject is very deep and I cannot address everything in just a few sentences.
You haven't addressed anything in any depth, yet. You've just made promises to do so.quote:
Although one might imply the other, design does not necessarily lead to an identification of a designer. Design, is a different subject than designer. I can drive my car just fine without knowing the name of the designer. I can use my hair dryer and vacuum cleaner just fine without knowing who the design engineer was.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 18:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
*********You conveniently left out that the 2nd law only applies to closed systems.
The earth is not a closed system, absorbing energy from the sun and radiating energy back into space, so a decrease in "disorder" for the earth as a whole is not in conflict with the 2nd law. Evolution does not violate the 2nd law, because it allows local decreases in entropy, as long as the total entropy of the closed system increases. If the overall entropy of the universe increases, the process can proceed.***********
This is simply false, I'm afraid, but don't feel bad because this is a very common confusion on the part of those who did not actually study thermodynamics in physical chemistry classes. Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize for his work in open system thermodynamics. Schrodinger, Gibbs and many others have studied thermo in the human body. Human bodies are very open systems.
SLOT applies equally to open, closed and isolated systems. The math is just different. And I agree that entropy can decrease in open and closed systems, but not in isolated ones. Would you care to see this mathematically?
Simply false? What part of :
"The total entropy of a closed system is always increasing is another way of stating the second law of thermodynamics. A closed system is a system that does not interact in any way with its surroundings."
is unclear to you? The 2nd law does not apply equally to open and closed systems. That is, you cannot claim that entropy must decrease in open systems. Biological systems are open sytems. Therefore claiming that evolution, or any process which decreases entropy in a biological (open) system violates the 2nd law, is simply a misapplication of the law.
No, I don't feel bad that the likes of you disagree with me. I didn't study thermodynamics in physical chemistry classes. I studied themodynamics in thermodynamics classes, and further in classes leading to a professional license.
quote:
First he claimed that SLOT only applies to closed systems, then in the next paragraph he sent me to page to show how SLOT is used in biological systems--open systems.
Obvioulsy you missed the point, which is that the tree is an OPEN system and that is why it can become more ordered, and why that is NOT a violation of the 2nd law.
Now, how about dropping the smug attitude and producing some actual evidence that the 2nd law prohiits evolution. Or better yet, some evidence of any kind that thermodynamics supports ID?
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 19:34:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
Since when does the laws of thermodynamics apply to biology?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 19:51:12 [Permalink]
|
********No, the part of SLOT which says that entropy must increase applies only to closed systems. The equations apply to any system, including those decreasing in entropy due to outside influences. But, since you're busy committing the logical fallacy of "equivocation," by equating the term 'entropy' (a specific thermodynamics term meaning "energy available for work") with the term 'disorder' (a non-specific term which is meaning-free to SLOT), people here have been pretty kind to you by not calling you an idiot - too much.********
Well I would hope that the people on here can handle their arguments without name-calling. That would be fairly juvenile, would it not? With this said, I feel you are somewhat confused in your knowledge of thermodynamics.
I never stated that entropy must increase in open and closed systems. With any spontaneous event or reaction, entropy will tend to increase. And you are simply wrong in that entropy must increase in closed systems. You are confusing closed systems with isolated systems:
"Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system...... Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system........ Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system."
http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/thermo2.html
Knowing this, it can be said that entropy can only go up or stay the same in isolated systems. This is not true for open and closed systems.
And the same equations do not apply to all reactions in all three systems. First a reversible reaction does not increase the entropy of the universe. Irreversible ones always do:
Reversible: Suniverse = 0
Irreversible: Suniverse > 0
Nor is the math S = Q / T used in isolated systems to calculate equilibrium. That would be calculus similar to:
Finally you have Carnot's version of entropy backward: Entropy is energy not available for work. This can also be shown as disorder:
"Entropy is a quantity that cannot be measured by direct means. It represents the amount of energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic system. Since work is related to order, entropy is also a measure of chaos within the system. The more orderly a system is the more energy there is available to it."
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~dlk/tangents/vortex/vortex_public.php
quote:
Reference this claim, please. What "researcher" of ID has published this prediction anywhere?******
Okay, that was a trick question. Since ID has no research program whatsoever, there are no ID researchers at all. So seriously, who - besides you - has made the suggestion that ID predicts that "objects will disorder?"
There is no such thing as an ID researcher. We study biology just as you do. You will not find separate papers in ID biology and just biology. This is simply a misunderstanding of what ID is and believing what you read from our detractors who just make this stuff up as they go.
I believe astrophysicist Fred Hoyle may have been the first to calculate this disorder prediction:
"According to Hoyle Kimura's calculations of high costs only apply to a continuing declining environment. Maybe this is the most sensational chapter in the book. Hoyle's worries about deleterious mutations in the human species proved prophetic. In January this year (1999) the geneticist James Crow (6) stated: "3 new deleterious mutations per person per generation. Why aren't we extinct?""
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46.htm
quote:
You haven't yet presented anything of the sort. You should stop dilly-dallying, and get on with it.
Well what do you believe I've been discussing? Genesis Chapter 1?
quote:
Hey, I might be going out on a limb here, but I'm betting that you're actually Jerry Don Bauer, who's posted to both ARN and to Panda's Thumb, and if so, you know quite well that there are tons of words about ID, but no testable predictions, no research proposals, and no science, but simply refuse to acknowledge it. (Also if so, I've read quite a bit of your "work" in this area. Thanks for dropping by. If I'm right, folks, this guy is like a savant version of verlch.)
You're right, *tipping hat* developing quite a reputation around the Web, it seems. But sorry, I don't know anything about verlch. I have listed several predictions of ID (I believe there were 8 of them). But I see you address them below, so you really didn't mean that. 
quote:
While I'm flattered that you are comparing our membership here with scientists, I'm afraid you're confused about what you're seeing here. "ID" comes in many forms, from Dembski's "Glory of God" kind of ID all the way to whatever the hell it is that you will, with any luck, eventually detail for us. And because ID is so chimereal, the folks here talking about "it" should be forgiven from jumping from one possibility to the next.
I don't feel there are several versions of it. There are just those that mainly discuss it from a philosophical view, such as Dembski, others that attempt to intermingle it with religious beliefs which most of detest and then you have people like me who approach it purely scientifically.
quote:
But the observer isn't necessary, and Tipler's argument is simply a misunderstanding of quantum principles. An "observer" does not necessarily have intelligence in quantum theory. To think that it does is metaphysical nonsense, not found within the math.
Particles themselves have intelligence. How do you think that this particle knew when it was and was not being observed? And if this experiment showed anything, it showed that particles must be observed in order to act in certain ways.
As to your other points on Tipler, you need to include what the site is really saying rather than what you want it to say:
"Nevertheless, he has been attacked by scientists, who argue that he has concocted a theory to prove beliefs (some have even tried to have him "fired" from Tulane, which you can't do to a tenured professor). In addition, he has been criticized by theologians, who take issue with Tipler's notion of God.
But despite this, both the theory and the book are hugely important. While not everyone agrees with his eschatological speculations, Tipler's physics are endorsed by such scientists as the influential quantum physicist David Deutsch. And many note that his work marks an emerging renaissance in which advancing science and technology, from quantum physics to genetic engineering, is spawning new cosmologies and philosophies, such as Transhumanism"
Note that Tipler is an admitted atheist, criticized by theologians and there are other scientists who fully support his reasoning.
< |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2004 : 19:53:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Since when does the laws of thermodynamics apply to biology?
Well, biology is based in chemistry, which is based in physics. All physical processes which involve a heat transfer obey the laws of thermodynamics, including biology.
A tree, for example, takes sunlight, air, water and minerals to locally decrease its own entropy, at the expense of an increase in entropy in its surroundings (and an increase in entropy in the Sun itself).
But Jerry isn't willing to take his version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics far enough. After all, if an increase in complexity is forbidden by the SLOT, then a fertilized egg could not have grown up to become Jerry. So, either:
1) the SLOT doesn't apply as he thinks it does, or
2) the "designer" is present and actively "designing" constantly, in all living cells.
The second, of course, is pure theology, and so isn't what Jerry is talking about. So, I'm going with the first choice. And Jerry has never - to my knowledge - put forth an adequate argument as to why he is correct, and everyone else who has a grasp of the Laws of Thermodynamics is wrong. His arguments have relied upon his equivocation of 'entropy' and 'disorder', which is simply wrong from a strict thermodynamics point-of-view. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
