|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2009 : 16:17:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Welcome matt.
Perhaps you could clarify one thing for me:
How does "micro" evolution NOT violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, yet "macro" evolution does?
I eagerly await your answer.
|
R.Wreck. I have previously stated the differences between Micro and Macro evolution. But ill explain again in short. Micro isnt Darwinian evolution. Macro is. Micro does not modify a species to another higher evolved species, its still the same species and may in fact return to its previous state as was the case with Darwins finches. Macro is small steps, (not lots of micro,s equally a Macro) in transitions to a new species.
Entrophy is the reason that thermo dynamics does not apply to Micro evolution as micro evolution does not become a more complex state or higher in its order.
Within thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of random ways in which a system may be arranged often taken to be a measure of "disorder". Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, reducing the system's ability to do work as energy is lost to irretrievable heat. Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry. Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes are spontaneous and others are not; entropy is accordingly an index of a system's tendency towards spontaneous change, with systems tending to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. In fact, for isolated systems, entropy is constrained by the condition that it never decreases. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual motion" machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time.
An everyday example of entropy can be seen in a deck of cards. A deck ordered by suit and number will tend to progress towards a randomly arranged deck upon shuffling, because the latter system has more possible states than the former. Furthermore, this process is thermodynamically irreversible; restoring the deck to its ordered state requires the application of work. The recovery of the ordered deck via the random process of shuffling is highly unlikely because the random deck has a much higher entropy.
|
Matt, I see the problem. I bolded it for you above, but it bears repeating:
| for isolated systems, entropy is constrained by the condition that it never decreases |
The key phrase is "isolated systems". For open systems, entropy may increase, decrease, or stay the same. Open systems allow the flow of energy across their boundaries, which removes the constraint on entropy that isolated systems have.
Take, for example, the refrigerator or air conditioner which causes heat to flow from a low temperature source to a higher temperature sink. At first blush, this may seem to violate the 2nd law, but of course it doesn't, because it works. Why? Because we can add work (equivalent to energy) to the system.
Or the steam or Rankine cycle. Open the link. You'll see the T-S (temperature-entropy) diagram clearly showing that the entropy of the process fluid increases and decreases at various points in the cycle. Here are steam tables you can use to verify the entropy at any point in the cycle.
What does all this have to do with evolution? Simply, that biological systems are open systems. The earth is an open system. Energy is constantly flowing across the boundaries of these systems, therefore one cannot say that their entropy must always increase.
It is true that as a result of these processes the entropy of the universe increases, but local decreases in entropy are not prohibited by the 2nd law.
In conclusion the claim that evolution is prohibited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false. You cannot claim that the entropy of an open systems, which includes the biospshere, always decreases. You cannot make that claim because energy is allowed to cross the boundaries of those systems.
|
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
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 19:12:25 [Permalink]
|
| Miss a few days and see what you get? |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 04:02:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Miss a few days and see what you get?
|
You haven't missed anything ground-breaking. |
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. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/03/2009 : 04:31:02 [Permalink]
|
I'm bored, and it looks like we may have lost matt. Today's Creationists just don't seem to have the staying power they used to. Why back in my day, they would..... Oh, never mind.
But I have a really neat transitional, indeed, an exceptional transitional, to put forth, so I might as well do it anyway and hope our friend at least lurks it.
This guy is remarkable because it is still around today.
Lungfish burrows have been found as trace fossils in Devonian strata. Burrows with the fish still in them have been found from the Permian. There were once some seven known Families, but all but two died out probably during the Permian/Triassic extinction event. Today, there are three Genera residing on three diverse continents -- Australia, South Africa and South America, but fossils of them have been found internationally.
We all know about the the lungfish's remarkable ability to survive drought by burrowing into the mud of a drying pond, encasing itself in mucus, and shutting down it's metabolism to something like 1/60th of normal and estivating, so we won't bother with that. This animal is really interesting in that it is the closest living relative of tetrapods and share number of traits with them/us. I add the "us" because we too, are tetrapods along with the anteater, the vulture, and the rattlesnake.
Lungfish were quite advanced 'way back in their early days. They had tooth enamel similar to tetrapods and had separated their pulmonary blood flow from that of their bodies, as an air-breather should. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know exactly when this trait evolved. They have four stringy lobe fins in the positions expected for a tetrapod. With the exception of the Australian, today's lungfish have paired lungs similar to the lungs of tetrapods.
Ancient lungfish are mainly known from their teeth and the ossified portions of their skull roofs. The rest of the animal including the brain case was/is cartilage and soft tissue, poor material for fossilization. The fossil record tells us that this ossified portion has changed in minor ways since the Devonian.
Unlike it's early contemporaries, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega and indeed Tiktaalik, et al., the lungfish never tried, nor indeed was able to come ashore. If it had, perhaps the world of the tetrapods would be quite different from what we see today. Or not; that Permian Extinction was a bitch-kitty that only the super-tough survived!
African lungfish
Reference
Reference
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 10:35:41 [Permalink]
|
filthy:
I'm bored, and it looks like we may have lost matt. |
Matt said he is busy. At this point, I think he will be back. Of course, he could just stay away in a perverse attempt to prove another one of my predictions wrong... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 12:31:52 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
I can't decide if Matt is just another hit and run Creationist troll bent on stirring up a lot of antagonism at the hated "skeptics" site, and then vanishing; or if he actually has some desire to discuss evolution or other scientific constructs that seem to infuriate these pathetic people.
He returns again and again, yet he has so far failed to offer anything other than the patented party line dogma-without-substantiation of the "anti-evolutionists". What's his game? Is he just massively dumb - which his syntax, spelling, and sentence construction would suggest - or is he actually bent on creating troll consternation which he can take as a blow struck for Christ, or God, or whatever? |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 12:53:49 [Permalink]
|
| Hit-and-run isn't such a bad tactic when you are ambushed. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 13:11:48 [Permalink]
|
Baxter.......
| Hit-and-run isn't such a bad tactic when you are ambushed. |
Ambushed? This fucker voluntarily entered an ongoing discussion. He joined the party, nobody pushed him!
If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the restaurant business! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 14:22:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Hit-and-run isn't such a bad tactic when you are ambushed.
|
Well, after a manner of speaking, I supposed matt was ambushed -- by himself. He came in here to argue evolution and was unprepared for it. I hope he's doing a bit of study during his time off. It'll enhance the discussion.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
River Otter
Skeptic Friend
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 21:25:04 [Permalink]
|
| I do not have time to spell out for you in my own words, besides this wiki's explanation would carry more weight with you guys than anything i would say. |
Actually, Wikipidia holds no weight with me. Anyone who has taken a writing course and written a research paper knows that Wikipedia isn't a credible place for information. However, you can use the references at the bottom of the page of interest. |
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know. -Cicero
Brother, You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book. -Sagoyewatha,(Red Jacket) - Chief and great orator of the six nations. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 21:51:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Baxter.......
| Hit-and-run isn't such a bad tactic when you are ambushed. |
Ambushed? This fucker voluntarily entered an ongoing discussion. He joined the party, nobody pushed him!
If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the restaurant business! |
That said, I wish that sometimes we took a more civil tone when people-- even creationists-- posted unpopular views here. If we want discussion (and lots of posts and active threads) then it seems that an ambush isn't a great idea. How many lurkers are turned off to the idea of entering the fray when they know that 10+ regular SFNers will jump on said lurker within a day with sometimes caustic accusations and posts? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 22:06:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That said, I wish that sometimes we took a more civil tone when people-- even creationists-- posted unpopular views here. If we want discussion (and lots of posts and active threads) then it seems that an ambush isn't a great idea. How many lurkers are turned off to the idea of entering the fray when they know that 10+ regular SFNers will jump on said lurker within a day with sometimes caustic accusations and posts? |
Of course, there's a difference between an unpopular view and a 30 year-old lie.
There's also a difference between a person who comes here honestly looking for information and/or discussion, and someone who comes here with both barrels blazing from post one. And it's easy to see the difference in the kind of replies they receive. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 22:25:21 [Permalink]
|
River Otter wrote: | Actually, Wikipidia holds no weight with me. Anyone who has taken a writing course and written a research paper knows that Wikipedia isn't a credible place for information. However, you can use the references at the bottom of the page of interest. |
Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reference, however it is an incredible useful place to begin research exactly because it cites its own articles references at the bottom. It is also incredibly useful for more casual debates such as these online forums, again because it cites its references. Wikipedia articles tend to be pretty in depth and the editors tend to be passionate about accuracy and quality. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/03/2009 22:26:09 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/03/2009 : 23:35:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
That said, I wish that sometimes we took a more civil tone when people-- even creationists-- posted unpopular views here. If we want discussion (and lots of posts and active threads) then it seems that an ambush isn't a great idea. How many lurkers are turned off to the idea of entering the fray when they know that 10+ regular SFNers will jump on said lurker within a day with sometimes caustic accusations and posts? |
Of course, there's a difference between an unpopular view and a 30 year-old lie.
There's also a difference between a person who comes here honestly looking for information and/or discussion, and someone who comes here with both barrels blazing from post one. And it's easy to see the difference in the kind of replies they receive.
|
Yeah, but some of those people, Matt for example, don't necessarily know they are spouting a 30 year old lie. The fact that some people come here with both barrels blazing doesn't mean that we can't slap them down while remaining civil in tone. Those things are not mutually exclusive. And while there may be no nice way to tell a person that they are dead wrong, being mean spirited is probably the least effective way to show them, or the lurkers who we are often, at least in part, aiming our "comments/lessons" at, how they are wrong. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 00:27:31 [Permalink]
|
Oh come on, Cune and Kil. This Matt came in here full of attitude, both patronizing and insulting. He is an ill-informed buffoon who repeatedly denigrates the group level of education and knowledge which is immeasurably higher than his condition of uninformed ignorance.
I see no reason to afford him much respect. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
