|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2011 : 09:29:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Then go ahead and redo the Feynman math with energy/temp in it. |
Why? Feynman's units weren't energy/temp.| So if I pick any two numbers from any peer-reviewed papers, I can calculate some sort of entropy? |
No, and that's a silly question. Here are two numbers: 10 and 50. Now show me an entropic trend in that system and how it would be meaningful. |
That's exactly my point about the two numbers you used.| You don't need to: you pulled two numbers and did math with them. Math that no evolutionary biologist or statistical physicist has ever done before, or would ever do. |
Well, thank you. You just keep complimenting me for being an innovative voice in science. |
You keep fooling yourself like that.I thought you were avoiding linking to creationist sites. Beyond that, the authors extended Shannon entropy to analyzing biological sequences, and they justified the numbers they used. Unlike what you've done.| Once again, you are trying to deflect my criticisms of you onto other people. |
Um...no. You keep criticizing my use of THEIR figures... |
Yes, I am criticizing how you use their results. I have no reason to criticize them, because they're not trying to cram their numbers into an inappropriate equation, you are.| ...and attempting everything you can to make people think that "I" made up those figures... |
That's just a lie. Nowhere have I said that you made up the numbers. We all know where you got them from. The point of contention is how you use them.| ...and that they did NOT come from a peer-reviewed paper from people on your side. |
Again: we all know where they came from. But the choice of which of the many numbers that appear in that paper was yours.Thanks for apologizing.| I understand exactly what I'm calculating. You just don't like the results because it upsets your apple cart. |
That's not a refutation of my criticisms, it is empty, boastful rhetoric.| And yes, you can put a negative number through the factorial function using the Gamma function. |
The Gamma function is not defined for negative integers, so you're saying you're lucky that the researchers didn't find -1.0 deleterious mutations.| But, since genomes don't order over time as you think they do, we will never have to use the Gamma function. |
Again, you're assuming your conclusion. Circular logic doesn't fly.| Of course, we wouldn't even need to do that if a situation did rise. As I told you earlier we can use the positive factorial function. It's obvious that one will know whether they are plugging in deleterious or beneficial mutations. |
Then why bother calculating the entropy? If we know the answer already, there's no need for an extra step of obfuscating mathematics.| If we are calculating beneficial, just turn the formula around as Schrodinger did: -S = K log1/W. You will show an ordering genome. |
No, adding a negative sign in front of the variable S does not negate the value within S.| Here you go again, trying to pass off the math from the University of New South Wales, physics department as my math. |
Show me where anyone from the University of New South Wales took the same numbers that you picked and ran them through the Boltzmann formula, and then you'll have demonstrated that it's not your math.| And there is no such thing as a 100% deleterious mutation rate, the population would be extinct and you wouldn't have anything to calculate. Yup, entropy WOULD be zero. |
Way to miss the point.| I need references to show that your math is wrong? Wow. Next thing I know, you'll be asking me for citations that 2+2=4. |
Yeah, I need some references to show the math wrong. I gave you one to show it correct. |
No, you provided no references that the numbers you chose can provide meaningful results when run through the Boltzmann formula. You have provided no justification. You may as well have used page numbers from the article, for all the meaning your result contains.| Is the inverse asking too much? |
It's hypocritical.| In fact, you have shown little reference for almost anything you have posited in this discussion. |
You get what you give.| Here's another problem with your math: in all physics equations, addition or subtraction requires matching units. If the units don't match, you know you're doing something wrong. The first number in your calculation, 41469.6, comes from subtracting deleterious mutations per person per generation from total nucleotides. That's like subtracting 60 MPH from 12 miles. It makes no sense, and invalidates your whole mathematical argument. |
That's bunk. I added and multiplied mutated nucleotides and total nucleotides. |
No, you keep on insisting that you're using a "trend" number, which you can't add or subtract from the total nucleotides and have the result retain any meaning.| It is assumed in that study that every generation has the same number of nucleotides. |
So what? It's still bases/generation, which you can't subtract from bases.| But if it makes you feel better, use total substitutions and total nucleotides; you are not going to be any better off. |
Using total substitutions, we would get a spot measurement of the entropy, and not a trend.| Furthermore, entropy is not a "tendency" as you've claimed. Entropy is a measurement of energy unavailable to do work (in thermodynamics) or a measurement of the "number of ways" things can be arranged (Feynman, Shannon). Those are spot measurements, not trends. Where you, Jerry, make the mistake that entropy is a tendency is in the fact that SLOT says that in an isolated system, entropy (S) will tend to increase. |
Wrong again: "Entropy is the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity or total randomness."
http://www.tompotter.us/entropy.html |
Who the hell is Tom Potter and why should I give any credence to what he says about entropy? He seems to be not an expert in physics, and what you've linked to is not a peer-reviewed paper. So, turn-about being fair play:Entropy is the quantitative measure of disorder in a system.
- Physics major Andrew Zimmerman Jones
In Boltzmann's definition, entropy is a measure of the number of possible microscopic states (or microstates) of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium, consistent with its macroscopic thermodynamic properties (or macrostate).
- Wikipedia
Entropy is what the equations define it to be. You can interpret those equations to come up with a prosey explanation, but remember that the prose & the equations have to match up, because the equations give a firm, mathematical definition for entropy, that just won't go away. In classical thermodynamics, the entropy of a system is the ratio of heat content to temperature (equation 1), and the change in entropy represents the amount of energy input to the system which does not participate in mechanical work done by the system (equation 3). In statistical mechanics, the interpretation is more general perhaps, where the entropy becomes a function of statistical probability. In that case the entropy is a measure of the probability for a givem macrostate, so that a high entropy indicates a high probability state, and a low entropy indicates a low probability state (equation 6).
- Physicist and astronomer Tim Thompson (who also points out that entropy is not "disorder" or "complexity") I could easily go on, but I'm sure you'll note that none of these sources define entropy as a trend.| While it is true that the original definition by Clausius was entropy is energy unavailable to do work, this definition is applicable ONLY in classical thermodynamics and we are not studying heat, are we. |
Statistical mechanics didn't change Clausius' entropy from a spot measurement into a trend, Jerry.| SLOT: With every spontaneous reaction entropy will tend to increase. |
Yes, entropy tends to increase is what SLOT says. It doesn't define entropy as a tendency. SLOT is the tendency, entropy is a spot measurement. Just like average MPH is my tendency to move, while a spot measurement might be how far I am from home.| Do you know what a spontaneous reaction is in chemistry? |
Yup.| Spontaneous reactions are exothermic reactions. They release heat and therefore increase entropy. |
And by using that grammar, you are agreeing that S, the variable associated with entropy, is not a trend but a spot measurement. Otherwise, you are claiming that exothermic reactions have a tendency to increase a trend.| But are all reactions exothermic? No. Some are endothermic and absorb heat. These lower entropy. This is why SLOT is a tendency. |
Yes, SLOT is the tendency. Entropy is not.| And this should be common sense to you. |
Another appeal to common sense. Jerry, you crack me up.| The Boltzmann formula has no Δt or any other such variable in it. It is a spot measurement, it does not reveal tendencies. Inputting a trend value like "deleterious mutations per generation" doesn't magically turn S into ΔS. The Second Law of Thermodynamics discusses ΔS. Boltzmann's formula does not. |
It is not a spot measure when the data you plug into it is not a spot measure... |
No, that's what makes your math inappropriate. Or do you think I can plug a density figure in for m in F=ma and get a meaningful result?| ...and is an average of a trend per generation over 6 million years. |
So what? That doesn't make subtracting a trend from a non-trend number any more valid.| You are still harping on this? .....And again, you are climbing back into the 1800s and into the Classical Thermodynamic era when little was known in thermodynamics regarding statistical mechanics. |
How did statistical mechanics change SLOT? Show me the new equation.| If you want a delta, just change formulas: deltaS = deltaQ/T works nicely for heat exchanges, but we are not talking heat exchanges. |
So what equation defines the change in entropy when we're not talking about heat exchanges?| Of course. we can still show change in statistical entropy via S = K logW taking two or more calculations and plugging them into the formula deltaS = S2 - S1. No big whoop and quite simple thermodynamics. |
Yes, but you don't have two measurements to compare.| And I'll bet if I take a shovel and dig for two hours, I might uncover a point somewhere in that diatribe? |
You were suggesting that Shannon entropy and statistical-mechanics entropies were calculated differently. They aren't. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 11:29:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Why? Feynman's units weren't energy/temp. |
Are you just playing games? I don't see a point here, either. And why is this important to the discussion?
| That's exactly my point about the two numbers you used. |
You have no point at all about those numbers because they represent mutated nucleotides as compared to overall nucleotides studied. I did not just pick any two numbers as you claim and the readers will see this. Those numbers are most relevant to the discussion.
| I thought you were avoiding linking to creationist sites. Beyond that, the authors extended Shannon entropy to analyzing biological sequences, and they justified the numbers they used. Unlike what you've done. |
That was not a creationist site, it is a society for Christian college professors. And I have justified my numbers as well re-read the abstract.
| Yes, I am criticizing how you use their results. I have no reason to criticize them, because they're not trying to cram their numbers into an inappropriate equation, you are. |
You have not shown that equation to be inappropriate, you just mouth it to death.
| That's just a lie. Nowhere have I said that you made up the numbers. We all know where you got them from. The point of contention is how you use them. |
Well, you keep calling them my numbers and my math when neither is.
| Again: we all know where they came from. But the choice of which of the many numbers that appear in that paper was yours. |
Yeah, and the ones that would make the point and show the genome degrading over time via deleterious mutations.
| Then why bother calculating the entropy? If we know the answer already, there's no need for an extra step of obfuscating mathematics. |
Bingo! Just admit that the study shows deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome for 6 million years and we will need no math at all, will we. But you are not going to have the intellectual honesty to admit that, are you?
| No, adding a negative sign in front of the variable S does not negate the value within S. |
Oh please. You're lost again. The negative sign in front of the S is there just to show it is negative entropy we are calculating. Pull it off if you want. It doesn't do anything mathematically.
Are you not aware that had we been calculating beneficial mutations rather than deleterious ones; had we used log1/W rather than logW we would have come up with the same number but a negative one showing order rather than disorder?
I can't help it if you don't know how to use Boltzmann's formula. But it does put to bed your silly notion that positive factorials can't show negative entropy.
| Show me where anyone from the University of New South Wales took the same numbers that you picked and ran them through the Boltzmann formula, and then you'll have demonstrated that it's not your math. |
What a ridiculous request. I don't know if anyone there has even read that paper. And you know this. You are just posturing. But it's their math, I just used Eyre-Walker/Keightely numbers in it.
Oh, I got your point very well. There is no such thing as a 100% deleterious mutation rate in an extant species. And since the mutation rate in an extinct one WOULD be zero, the math works perfectly and you lose this point of debate.
| No, you provided no references that the numbers you chose can provide meaningful results when run through the Boltzmann formula. You have provided no justification. You may as well have used page numbers from the article, for all the meaning your result contains. |
BAHAHAhahahahah.......That's a good one. It provided enough meaningful results to show the genome disordering over a period of about 6 million years, didn't it? Just more posturing.
No, when I post you a reference to the math I did for you and you say it is incorrect, then I ask for references showing it to be incorrect, that's not hypocritical. It's fair.
Why don't you just fess up and admit that you cannot because there are none?
Right....We'll let the readers decide that.
| No, you keep on insisting that you're using a "trend" number, which you can't add or subtract from the total nucleotides and have the result retain any meaning. |
You call it a trend number if I recall. I call it showing that 1.6 deleterious mutations have accumulated in the human genome per generation over a period of about 6 million years. Is that a trend? If so, then fine, if not then fine. It is what it is. And you can subtract mutated nucleotides from healthy nucleotides all day long and glean much meaning.
| So what? It's still bases/generation, which you can't subtract from bases. |
Yes I can because the number of bases I am subtracting from are the same in that one person as it is anywhere else in the study. Your logic won't fly here because there is none.
| Using total substitutions, we would get a spot measurement of the entropy, and not a trend. |
Not if you understand the math of thermodynamics. Simply calculate the entropy beginning with 1 mutation, then calculate it with whatever total number they ended up with and plug the entropies into deltaS = S2 - S1 -- There is that trend you so want to see in here.
| Who the hell is Tom Potter and why should I give any credence to what he says about entropy? He seems to be not an expert in physics, and what you've linked to is not a peer-reviewed paper. |
He's a physicist as best I can tell, if you don't like him, here's Dolphin: "Another manifestation of entropy is the tendency of systems to move toward greater confusion and disorder as time passes."
http://ldolphin.org/entropynotes.html
OK, and that paper says that entropy is not a tendency like......where?
In Boltzmann's definition, entropy is a measure of the number of possible microscopic states (or microstates) of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium, consistent with its macroscopic thermodynamic properties (or macrostate).
- Wikipedia |
Same question on that one. Have you forgotten the point? We both already know the above.
| Entropy is what the equations define it to be. You can interpret those equations to come up with a prosey explanation, but remember that the prose & the equations have to match up, because the equations give a firm, mathematical definition for entropy, that just won't go away. In classical thermodynamics, the entropy of a system is the ratio of heat content to temperature (equation 1), and the change in entropy represents the amount of energy input to the system which does not participate in mechanical work done by the system (equation 3). In statistical mechanics, the interpretation is more general perhaps, where the entropy becomes a function of statistical probability. In that case the entropy is a measure of the probability for a givem macrostate, so that a high entropy indicates a high probability state, and a low entropy indicates a low probability state (equation 6). |
Same question on that one.
| - Physicist and astronomer Tim Thompson (who also points out that entropy is not "disorder" or "complexity")I could easily go on, but I'm sure you'll note that none of these sources define entropy as a trend. |
LMAO......you are just throwing out various definition of entropy. None of which even address our argument on tendency. Why did you go to all that trouble?
| Statistical mechanics didn't change Clausius' entropy from a spot measurement into a trend, Jerry. |
OHHhhhh......Now we stick our foot in our mouth. ALL of Clausius' experimentation was done in isolated systems and you have already admitted that in isolated systems entropy "tends" to increase. So by your very words it is a tendency in this case.
| Yes, entropy tends to increase is what SLOT says. It doesn't define entropy as a tendency. SLOT is the tendency, entropy is a spot measurement. Just like average MPH is my tendency to move, while a spot measurement might be how far I am from home. |
LOL....Entropy tends to increase yet entropy is not a tendency. Explain to me how entropy tends to increase yet doesn't have a tendency to increase. You are so mixed up in this debate you couldn't find the kitchen door right now.
Explain to me in the formula deltaS = deltaQ/T how entropy is a "spot measurement" when it varies over time and we are calculating it over time. Post some references that say entropy is a "spot measurement"
| And by using that grammar, you are agreeing that S, the variable associated with entropy, is not a trend but a spot measurement. Otherwise, you are claiming that exothermic reactions have a tendency to increase a trend. |
Huh? What the heck is a tendency to create a trend? You make no sense here. And I'm saying no such thing. That's a strawman.
Glad to make your day.
| No, that's what makes your math inappropriate. Or do you think I can plug a density figure in for m in F=ma and get a meaningful result? |
No, when did I ever attempt to do this in Boltzmann'a formula?
| So what? That doesn't make subtracting a trend from a non-trend number any more valid. |
I did not do this...LOL.....I took the actual number of estimated deleterious mutations and compared them to the total number of nucleotides. It is nothing more complicated than that.
And I have no idea where you are going with this whole tendency/trend/spot measurement stuff. Because it isn't going to change anything. It doesn't matter if I "spot measured" every individual in the study because entropy is cumulative: total entropy = S1 + S2 + S3........You won't gain any points either way.
| How did statistical mechanics change SLOT? Show me the new equation. |
S = K logW is one.
| So what equation defines the change in entropy when we're not talking about heat exchanges? |
There are many of them. Depends on the system we are studying.
| Yes, but you don't have two measurements to compare. |
Sure we do, see above.
You were suggesting that Shannon entropy and statistical-mechanics entropies were calculated differently. They aren't.
|
They certainly can be. I was just cautioning someone who didn't understand the entropies to be careful. This can be a messy subject to understand. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 14:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
He's a physicist as best I can tell, if you don't like him, here's Dolphin: "Another manifestation of entropy is the tendency of systems to move toward greater confusion and disorder as time passes."
http://ldolphin.org/entropynotes.html
|
Another religionist. Go figure... 
Haven't read enough of his site to be able to tell if he's a YEC or OEC yet.
|
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 - 01/04/2011 : 15:02:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JerryB
He's a physicist as best I can tell, if you don't like him, here's Dolphin: "Another manifestation of entropy is the tendency of systems to move toward greater confusion and disorder as time passes."
http://ldolphin.org/entropynotes.html
|
Another religionist. Go figure...
Haven't read enough of his site to be able to tell if he's a YEC or OEC yet.
|
He is a Christian, but also a well known physicist. But come on, something like 80 or 90% of everybody in America is a believer. And I certainly have never seen him hang out on these type forums.
The deal is that if you guys insist I find only references from non-believers, then I have the right to insist that none of your references come from non-believers and guess what, we are out of references altogether.  |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 15:10:20 [Permalink]
|
The funny thing is, I asked jerry many pages back why anyone would think a genome is tied to SLOT. It's not a closed system AND there are forces acting on genomes that increase order. Open system + input + ordering forces... yet somehow he wants to argue that entropy must only increase (totally ignoring that even in a closed system entropy does not have to be evenly distributed).
Then there is this "study" that allegedly shows how many deleterious mutations occur in a genome, with absolutely no mention of beneficial mutations or the rate at which those occur.
The guy is a tool. He clearly like to use bafflegab, has a massively overinflated ego (get published in a credible journal Jerry...oh, wait, you can't!  ), and he totally disregards anything that contradicts his claims, going so far as to completely ignore those he can't answer at all.
Basically, to summarize Jerry's arguments= "Hey, I'm jerry, watch me poop!"
 |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 01/04/2011 15:10:46 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 15:54:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JerryB
He's a physicist as best I can tell, if you don't like him, here's Dolphin: "Another manifestation of entropy is the tendency of systems to move toward greater confusion and disorder as time passes."
http://ldolphin.org/entropynotes.html
|
Another religionist. Go figure...
Haven't read enough of his site to be able to tell if he's a YEC or OEC yet. |
He is a Christian, but also a well known physicist. |
That's not the impression I get from from his home page: "From time to time I write, and rewrite, short studies based on my understanding of the Bible." Then he points at his library: http://ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml
Take a good look and tell me the religious/physics quota on the number of links he has there.
| But come on, something like 80 or 90% of everybody in America is a believer. |
In America as a whole, possibly, but in academia the number much lower. I don't mind scientists being religious, as long as they don't their religion's dogma interfere with them doing science. Plastering "Jesus Love You" all over their home page and on nearly every other page on the site is a warning sign that raises a red flag on lost objectivity.
| And I certainly have never seen him hang out on these type forums. |
Maybe he should. I'd love to see what he thinks of your mangling of Botzmann's equation.
| The deal is that if you guys insist I find only references from non-believers, |
Strawman...
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 16:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
You have no point at all about those numbers because they represent mutated nucleotides as compared to overall nucleotides studied. |
No, they don't. If that were true, then over six million years one would expect to see 384,000 deleterious mutations, but the authors only studied 41,471 overall. Because (as you've insisted before, and I agree) it's not "mutated nucleotides," but "deleterious mutated nucleotide per person per generation." It's a rate. An average rate per generation over six million years. And you can't just subtract such a rate from the number of nucleotides under study and expect a meaningful result.| I did not just pick any two numbers as you claim and the readers will see this. Those numbers are most relevant to the discussion. |
They might be the most relevant, but that doesn't mean you can just stuff 'em into a Boltzmann formula and get a meaningful result.| I thought you were avoiding linking to creationist sites. Beyond that, the authors extended Shannon entropy to analyzing biological sequences, and they justified the numbers they used. Unlike what you've done. |
That was not a creationist site, it is a society for Christian college professors. |
Read their Statement of Faith. They are fundamentalist Christians who believe in the historicity of Genesis (literal six-day creation and all that).| And I have justified my numbers as well re-read the abstract. |
The abstract has nothing to do with your math.| You have not shown that equation to be inappropriate, you just mouth it to death. |
You're just in denial. I've shown it to be the wrong formula to use in three independent ways, and you've just whined about how I don't want to be wrong.| That's just a lie. Nowhere have I said that you made up the numbers. We all know where you got them from. The point of contention is how you use them. |
Well, you keep calling them my numbers and my math when neither is. |
When you chose to use them together, the whole package became your math.| Again: we all know where they came from. But the choice of which of the many numbers that appear in that paper was yours. |
Yeah, and the ones that would make the point and show the genome degrading over time via deleterious mutations. |
But Boltzmann's formula doesn't result in a rate over time. Factorial is a unitless conversion. Putting a rate number in delivers a unitless number out.| Then why bother calculating the entropy? If we know the answer already, there's no need for an extra step of obfuscating mathematics. |
Bingo! Just admit that the study shows deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome for 6 million years and we will need no math at all, will we. But you are not going to have the intellectual honesty to admit that, are you? |
I'd have to read the full study before I agreed to the word "accumulating." James Crow doesn't seem to think it'd be appropriate to use that word.| Oh please. You're lost again. The negative sign in front of the S is there just to show it is negative entropy we are calculating. Pull it off if you want. It doesn't do anything mathematically. |
If you think that, then I'm not the one who's lost.| Are you not aware that had we been calculating beneficial mutations rather than deleterious ones; had we used log1/W rather than logW we would have come up with the same number but a negative one showing order rather than disorder? |
Had we made both those changes, the number would still be positive. You obviously don't understand the math.| I can't help it if you don't know how to use Boltzmann's formula. |
Look in a mirror.| But it does put to bed your silly notion that positive factorials can't show negative entropy. |
I never said any such thing. If one uses the same equations you used, the entropy will never be below zero.
(As an aside, I really have made an error in this discussion. I'm surprised you haven't seen it.)| Show me where anyone from the University of New South Wales took the same numbers that you picked and ran them through the Boltzmann formula, and then you'll have demonstrated that it's not your math. |
What a ridiculous request. I don't know if anyone there has even read that paper. And you know this. You are just posturing. But it's their math, I just used Eyre-Walker/Keightely numbers in it. |
Since you decided what numbers to put into it, it's your math. It might be their formula, but it's your math.| Oh, I got your point very well. There is no such thing as a 100% deleterious mutation rate in an extant species. And since the mutation rate in an extinct one WOULD be zero, the math works perfectly and you lose this point of debate. |
No, you've still missed the point.| No, you provided no references that the numbers you chose can provide meaningful results when run through the Boltzmann formula. You have provided no justification. You may as well have used page numbers from the article, for all the meaning your result contains. |
BAHAHAhahahahah.......That's a good one. It provided enough meaningful results to show the genome disordering over a period of about 6 million years, didn't it? Just more posturing. |
You're the one who's posturing. You're not addressing my criticisms, you're just claiming that you're correct, over and over again. It's silly of you.| No, when I post you a reference to the math I did for you... |
No, you posted a reference for the formula. In no way was it a reference that supports your contention that you're using the formula correctly.| ...and you say it is incorrect, then I ask for references showing it to be incorrect, that's not hypocritical. It's fair. |
I don't need references to show that your units don't match, the formula you chose provides an unfalsifiable hypothesis, or that you're trying to turn a spot measurement into a rate. These things are basic logical flaws on your part, not scientific points of contention.| Right....We'll let the readers decide that. |
Talk about posturing. | You call it a trend number if I recall. |
You recall wrongly.| I call it showing that 1.6 deleterious mutations have accumulated in the human genome per generation over a period of about 6 million years. Is that a trend? |
You have already previously insisted that it's a trend, by bolding the "per generation" part.| If so, then fine, if not then fine. It is what it is. |
See? This is why I know you don't understand the math. These things have different units on them, and all the units need to match properly for you to be doing the math correctly. They don't match, so your math fails, but you don't care because you think you've proven something and are completely unwilling to admit that you've made mistakes.
I'm sure if you worked on it, you could try to fix the mistakes. But instead you're trying to sit on your fake laurels.| And you can subtract mutated nucleotides from healthy nucleotides all day long and glean much meaning. |
Not if it's "per generation" mutated nucleotides. Again, it's like subtracting 60 MPH from 13 miles. The result makes no sense.| So what? It's still bases/generation, which you can't subtract from bases. |
Yes I can because the number of bases I am subtracting from are the same in that one person as it is anywhere else in the study. |
So now you're claiming to measure the entropy in a single person's genome, and not the entropy increase over six million years? You really like moving those goalposts around, don't you?| Your logic won't fly here because there is none. |
Mirror.| Using total substitutions, we would get a spot measurement of the entropy, and not a trend. |
Not if you understand the math of thermodynamics. Simply calculate the entropy beginning with 1 mutation... |
Why 1 mutation? Where does that number come from?| ...then calculate it with whatever total number they ended up with... |
You don't know?| ...and plug the entropies into deltaS = S2 - S1 -- There is that trend you so want to see in here. |
Yeah, but you haven't actually done this.| Who the hell is Tom Potter and why should I give any credence to what he says about entropy? He seems to be not an expert in physics, and what you've linked to is not a peer-reviewed paper. |
He's a physicist as best I can tell... |
I couldn't tell at all, and since the idea that entropy is a trend is false, I don't think he's a good physicist....if you don't like him, here's Dolphin: "Another manifestation of entropy is the tendency of systems to move toward greater confusion and disorder as time passes."
http://ldolphin.org/entropynotes.html |
The first sentence: "Entropy is the scientific term for the degree of randomness or disorder in processes and systems." A "manifestation of entropy" is not a synonym for "entropy." Again: learn English.So, turn-about being fair play:
Entropy is the quantitative measure of disorder in a system.
- Physics major Andrew Zimmerman Jones
OK, and that paper says that entropy is not a tendency like......where? |
Wow. Such idiotic logic. The paper also doesn't say that giraffes like figs. How many more things does that paper not say?| Same question on that one. Have you forgotten the point? We both already know the above. |
Yes, and "the number of possible microstates..." is not a trend, now is it?| LMAO......you are just throwing out various definition of entropy. None of which even address our argument on tendency. Why did you go to all that trouble? |
If entropy were a trend, as you claim it is, then the definition of entropy should certainly say that it's a trend. All but one of the definitions of entropy we seen here say nothing about it being a trend.| Statistical mechanics didn't change Clausius' entropy from a spot measurement into a trend, Jerry. |
OHHhhhh......Now we stick our foot in our mouth. ALL of Clausius' experimentation was done in isolated systems and you have already admitted that in isolated systems entropy "tends" to increase. So by your very words it is a tendency in this case. |
But entropy isn't itself that tendency. Learn some damn English.| Yes, entropy tends to increase is what SLOT says. It doesn't define entropy as a tendency. SLOT is the tendency, entropy is a spot measurement. Just like average MPH is my tendency to move, while a spot measurement might be how far I am from home. |
LOL....Entropy tends to increase yet entropy is not a tendency. Explain to me how entropy tends to increase yet doesn't have a tendency to increase. |
Learn English.| You are so mixed up in this debate you couldn't find the kitchen door right now. |
I'm not the one who think that entropy is itself a tendency. "Entropy tends to rise" doesn't mean that S has a per-unit-time rate on it.| Explain to me in the formula deltaS = deltaQ/T how entropy is a "spot measurement" when it varies over time and we are calculating it over time. |
You didn't use SLOT, which defines a rate over time - a tendency. Instead, you used Boltzmann's formula, which results in a spot measurement.
S is a spot measurement of entropy. ΔS is a rate. They are not interchangeable. I know you know this, so you must just be arguing in order to make yourself look daft.| Post some references that say entropy is a "spot measurement" |
Post another reference that says it's a trend. You're the one who started this.| Huh? What the heck is a tendency to create a trend? |
I don't know, because you made it up by saying that entropy is a trend, which would mean that SLOT says that "a trend tends to rise in an isolated system."| You make no sense here. And I'm saying no such thing. That's a strawman. |
No, I've quoted you accurately.| No, that's what makes your math inappropriate. Or do you think I can plug a density figure in for m in F=ma and get a meaningful result? |
No, when did I ever attempt to do this in Boltzmann'a formula? |
When you plugged a per-generation rate in as a part of calculating W, which isn't a rate.| I did not do this...LOL.....I took the actual number of estimated deleterious mutations and compared them to the total number of nucleotides. It is nothing more complicated than that. |
No, you took the number of estimated deleterious mutations per generation (your bolding).| And I have no idea where you are going with this whole tendency/trend/spot measurement stuff. |
I'm just saying your units are incorrect, and if your units are incorrect all of the calculating you've done can be ignored.| Because it isn't going to change anything. |
That's the open-mindedness I've come to expect from you: "I don't know what you're criticizing but I won't change my mind because of whatever it is!" Brilliant stuff, that.| It doesn't matter if I "spot measured" every individual in the study because entropy is cumulative: total entropy = S1 + S2 + S3........You won't gain any points either way. |
You still don't understand the problem, then.| How did statistical mechanics change SLOT? Show me the new equation. |
S = K logW is one. |
No, the Boltzmann formula is not SLOT. The Boltzmann formula says nothing about how entropy can or cannot change. How did ΔS = δQ/T change because of the switch from thermodynamics to statistics? What is the statistical version of SLOT which leaves out the T so that we don't need to consider temperature anymore?| So what equation defines the change in entropy when we're not talking about heat exchanges? |
There are many of them. Depends on the system we are studying. |
Give me an example applicable to genetics.| Yes, but you don't have two measurements to compare. |
Sure we do, see above. |
Sure, if you pull the number 1 out of your butt. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 16:15:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The funny thing is, I asked jerry many pages back why anyone would think a genome is tied to SLOT. It's not a closed system AND there are forces acting on genomes that increase order. Open system + input + ordering forces... yet somehow he wants to argue that entropy must only increase (totally ignoring that even in a closed system entropy does not have to be evenly distributed).
|
What is "order" in the genome anyway?
Is it a measure of how much a genome match an "ideal" genome?
Take the nylon-eating bug...
Did the genome's entropy increase or decrease when the mutation happened?
The bacteria lost more than 90% of its digestion capacity in that event, so it must have been a deleterious mutation.
But the bacteria out-competed its ancestor in the specific environment in which it lived.
The decrease in coded amino acids actually led to an advantage.
Since evolution doesn't aim for some ultimate super genome, but just goes where mutations and natural selection takes it, who is to say when a mutation is deleterious and not?
A neutral mutation can lie dormant for thousands of generations, then suddenly interact with another mutation to create a huge leap in evolutionary progress. We know this happens. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 17:42:35 [Permalink]
|
Dr Mabuse asked:
What is "order" in the genome anyway?
Is it a measure of how much a genome match an "ideal" genome?
|
An actual cell or molecular biologist, if asked, will tell you that "entropy" is the heat generated by the hydrolysis of ATP/GTP and other energy carriers when they are used for work in reactions involving DNA. They will also tell you that living organisms constantly replace, with fresh input, new molecules from which energy can be gained. So order has to be the energy available to do work. Doesn't have didly squat to do with the nucleotide sequence of DNA.
When you start swapping out terms and context randomly, like IDtards (and Jerry) do, then you end up with an actual increase in "informational entropy", because they are just spewing nonsense. They have turned actual useful information into  .
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 17:57:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dr Mabuse asked:
What is "order" in the genome anyway?
Is it a measure of how much a genome match an "ideal" genome?
|
An actual cell or molecular biologist, if asked, will tell you that "entropy" is the heat generated by the hydrolysis of ATP/GTP and other energy carriers when they are used for work in reactions involving DNA. They will also tell you that living organisms constantly replace, with fresh input, new molecules from which energy can be gained. So order has to be the energy available to do work. Doesn't have didly squat to do with the nucleotide sequence of DNA.
When you start swapping out terms and context randomly, like IDtards (and Jerry) do, then you end up with an actual increase in "informational entropy", because they are just spewing nonsense. They have turned actual useful information into .
|
BAHAHAHAhahahahah........Clausius agrees with you....LMAO |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 20:19:37 [Permalink]
|
| OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 21:08:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works.
|
Oh, I will but one argument at a time....*wink*
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 22:14:22 [Permalink]
|
I'm still waiting to hear how it is reasonable to apply SLOT to an open system...
I'm also still waiting to hear how, under slective pressure, deleterious mutations accumulate faster than beneficial ones.
Jerry is just playing in his own poop and wants an audience. He knows he has no argument and he can't address those simple questions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 22:19:46 [Permalink]
|
I have this urn with a mix of yellow and blue balls (a total of 50 balls). I remove a yellow ball and replace it with a blue ball.
S=2.34*10-23
There ya go, entropy is increasing. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2011 : 23:36:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Bingo! Just admit that the study shows deleterious mutations accumulating in the human genome for 6 million years and we will need no math at all, will we. But you are not going to have the intellectual honesty to admit that, are you? |
Okay, I finally went and Googled up the whole letter (not a peer-reviewed study, but nevermind that), and now understand the methods better. The 1.6 deleterious mutations per diploid genome per generation figure is an estimate of mutations that should have been found, but were not. In other words, it is an estimate of mutations which have been selected out of the population, which is the exact opposite of mutations "accumulating."
Essentially, they say that if all mutations were neutral, they estimated that they should have found 231 non-synonymous mutations in their sample, but they only estimated 143 from the actual data. The other 88 (38%) have been selected out of the genome (constrained), and so are thought to have been deleterious. They then converted those estimates to per-site-per-year rates, and then to per-diploid-genome-per-generation (pdgpg) rates. 231 total estimated mutations becomes 4.2 mutations pdgpg, and 38% of 4.2 gives us the 1.6 pdgpg rate.
This is the opposite of what you want to show, Jerry. They're not saying that we get 1.6 more deleterious mutations per generation, they're saying that 1.6 deleterious mutations have been eliminated per generation over the last six million years.
The authors do say that such a high rate (which they think may be underestimated by as much as 40%, and the SEM is a whopping 50% of the 1.6 figure!) should be inconceivable for a low-reproductive-rate species like ourselves, but I don't really grok that part yet and will have to chase down their references sometime to learn more. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Intelligent Design is Stupid
