|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2011 : 11:53:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
I stopped responding because you obviously had lost the debate in that, like now, you were just repeating over and over the same, trite points hoping that if you typed them enough, they would come true. |
You're projecting again.| Oh, I know, the regulars on here won't agree, but that's OK, I'm used to that. But, I'm very careful when I debate someone in that, once I feel sure that any unbiased reader that reads in can see I have overcome the argument, I sum up and move on. |
Where is your evidence that "unbiased" readers can do that based on what you write? I will, of course, ignore the silly ad hominem argument for now.| No need to beat a dead horse. |
Then why do you keep beating on a silly cartoon version of Darwinism? That thing is surely dead, since it was never alive.And you think they worked with entropy but not SLOT? BAHAhahahahahah.....you are so lost in this subject that you cannot even intelligently discuss it.
Schrodinger on his work:
"The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle) and its equally famous statistical foundation. On pp. 69-74 I will try to sketch the bearing of the entropy principle on the large-scale behaviour of a living organism - forgetting at the moment all that is known about chromosomes, inheritance, and so on."
http://dieoff.org/page150.htm |
Indeed, he ignored a lot of stuff to write what he wrote. He was wrong in a lot of ways, actually, and thought until his death that Heisenberg was wrong (like Einstein did, too). Ironic that you cite both of them approvingly, even though they disagreed quite strongly with each other. But, that's one of the major failings of cherry-picking science like you do.| You cannot have entropy without SLOT because entropy is the measurement of the effects of SLOT. |
That's not how entropy is defined today. Perhaps it was, 60+ years ago, but you'll have to catch up.| I have told you this repeatedly, yet you still don't seem to get it: |
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it still won't magically become true."Molecules tend to spread out their energy by moving and rotating/vibrating in as many different ways as they can. (The more ways, the less concentrated is their energy in just one "quantum state" or way. More about quantum states later.) Entropy is a measure of the second law of thermodynamics."
http://departments.oxy.edu/chemistry/enthropy.htm |
The author of that page uses "entropy" synonymously with "change in entropy," a sloppy habit that he admits a few sentences later with "That's why entropy (OK, the change in entropy, DS)..."
More ironic are these quotes from the same page:Entropy is NOT "disorder".
Entropy is NOT a "measure of disorder" (except in three atomic/molecular situations)
Entropy is NEVER a measure of disorder in the arrangement of macro objects -- from playing cards and messy desks to bricks and boulders. So much for your hypothesis that the laws of thermodynamics declare that genomes should go from "order" to "disorder." Your own source disagrees with you.
"Laws that can be overcome aren't laws, are they? The Law of Universal Gravitation applies in exactly the same way to Moon rockets and my fat ass, it cannot be overcome by anything."
Why no, gravity cannot be overcome by the addition of energy either, can it. Every time they launch the space shuttle, it goes 50 feet into the air and just falls back to the ground?? |
So according to you, Jerry, "The Law of Universal Gravitation" and "the force of gravity on Earth" are synonymous. You really need to learn English.| Or maybe gravity just don't apply to space shuttles... |
Of course gravity applies to Space Shuttles, or they wouldn't need those big engines and boosters.| ...like SLOT don't apply to genes. |
SLOT doesn't define a tendency towards disorder in genomes because genomes are an open system, and because entropy doesn't measure disorder according to your own sources.| Finally, all Christians that believe in Genesis believe that Adam and Eve were designed. |
No, they believe that Adam was literally magically poofed into existence from clay, and that Eve was poofed into existence from one of Adam's ribs. Didn't you once claim that ID had no poofs in it? I guess if Biblical literalists are IDists according to you, then ID has nothing to do with the science, and it's all about faith in poofing. And you're somehow surprised that ID and religion are entertwined so tightly?| You don't think I meant to imply that Boyle and Pasteur had studied Behe or Dembski, do you? |
No, that's why I asked the question in the first place. I wanted to know what design detection you thought they had performed which benefitted vaccination or chemistry, respectively. I'm guessing none at all, since you've declared that being a Bible thumper who believes in magical poofing is enough to make one an IDist.
|
I don't need evidence to support a "feeling" or my opinion as I said in that statement. And apparently, you don't need evidence to support ANYTHING, since you never offer any. Like this:
| Indeed, he ignored a lot of stuff to write what he wrote. He was wrong in a lot of ways, actually, and thought until his death that Heisenberg was wrong (like Einstein did, too). |
I have no idea what Heisenberg and Einstein have to do with thermodynamics but the first part of this statement is bunk. I need some references to support this silly argument, please.
And why are you using my source to make arguments that have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make? But he is right. Entropy is not always disorder, he just didn't take it far enough--Not always, but it certainly can be.
I also need some references that entropy has nothing to do with SLOT, you are just making this stuff up as you go:
"If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience. Spend hours cleaning your desk, your basement, your attic, and it seems to spontaneously revert back to disorder and chaos before your eyes. So if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html
You also don't understand that a change in entropy is still entropy...lol, and one doesn't have to use delta to calculate it. I can use S = K log W to measure it and I can take two readings with that formula and plug it into deltaS = S2 - S1, but if I know that a system started with 0 entropy either formula is measuring a change in the system. You seem such a math purest that you lose common sense in the subject.
| SLOT doesn't define a tendency towards disorder in genomes because genomes are an open system |
Reference, please. And yes it does, read the first part of the above reference: "If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience. Spend hours cleaning your desk, your basement, your attic, and it seems to spontaneously revert back to disorder and chaos before your eyes."
And while it is proper (and quite common) to say that entropy "tends" to increase in isolated systems, it's more accurate to state that entropy MUST increase or stay the same in one.
Do yourself a favor and read this whole page on thermodynamic systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
When you do, you'll discover that open system thermodynamics is just as real as closed or isolated systems. It is just studied differently as one must define the boundaries before doing the the math. That's all. If you don't understand open system thermodynamics, then you'll never discuss the subject intelligently.
And common sense ought to tell you that if physicists teach the heat death of the universe via SLOT, which they do, entropy has to increase in open systems as well. What, is someday the universe going to be so disorganized as to be a sea of randomly floating particles EXCEPT planet Earth because it is an open system? How silly is that?
"The heat death of the universe is a suggested fate of the universe, its final thermodynamic state in which it has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life. In the language of physics, it has reached maximum entropy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
"An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
http://build-a-generator.net/2-law-of-thermodynamics-openclosed-irrelevant-to-creationevolution.html
Finally, yes, modern ID is science but I don't think Boyle lived in modern times, did he?
|
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 11:57:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Fripp
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks. |
Hypocrite.
|
Are you calling me a hypocrite? How so?
|
No, he's calling ME a hypocrite......lol.....he got the quote wrong.  |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 12:01:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by JerryB
Talk origins is as dogmatic as creationism. It's just the polar opposite.
|
How would you know? You don't read their references. You're just assuming.
BTW, Talk origins *does* have "references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments."
You avoid Talk Origins because what you may read there may shatter your worldview.
The fact that the world is round, despite what the Bible says, isn't a dogmatic view. It's a fact.
|
More correctly, I don't read their references anymore. I've refuted so many of them line by line that it's not worth the effort. If they have a paper you want me to see, just please link directly to the paper. That's OK. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 12:11:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Fripp
Please post references from scientists, published papers, science journals or university science departments. Thanks. |
Hypocrite.
|
Are you calling me a hypocrite? How so? |
How the hell did that happen? I clicked the reply button on Jerry's post, not yours. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 12:15:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
How the hell did that happen? I clicked the reply button on Jerry's post, not yours.
|
I figured as much. I was just checking if I missed something. No biggie. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2011 : 12:36:35 [Permalink]
|
Jerry:
I've refuted so many of them line by line that it's not worth the effort. |
Did anyone besides yourself notice and acknowledge your line by line refutations? Did Talk Origins have to concede your points? Or were your refutations as good as what you've been doing here? And when you leave here, will you also say that you refuted evolution and presented a convincing case for ID at SFN?
You're a hoot, Jerry... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2011 : 12:56:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I don't need evidence to support a "feeling" or my opinion as I said in that statement. |
Well, what you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence. So no, you didn't "win" anything in the other thread, and repeating your claim that I lost over and over won't make it come true.| And apparently, you don't need evidence to support ANYTHING, since you never offer any. |
Liar.Like this:| Indeed, he ignored a lot of stuff to write what he wrote. He was wrong in a lot of ways, actually, and thought until his death that Heisenberg was wrong (like Einstein did, too). |
I have no idea what Heisenberg and Einstein have to do with thermodynamics but the first part of this statement is bunk. I need some references to support this silly argument, please. |
You quoted Schrödinger saying that he would ignore certain aspects of life in order to apply entropy calculations to it. You need to learn what the English idiom "forgetting at the moment..." means.| And why are you using my source to make arguments that have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make? |
What, you're forbidding me from using your references to make other, relevant arguments against your position?| But he is right. Entropy is not always disorder, he just didn't take it far enough--Not always, but it certainly can be. |
No, he used the word "never." You're simply denying what's in black-and-white.| I also need some references that entropy has nothing to do with SLOT, you are just making this stuff up as you go: |
No, you just made that up. I never once claimed that "entropy has nothing to do with SLOT."
"If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience. Spend hours cleaning your desk, your basement, your attic, and it seems to spontaneously revert back to disorder and chaos before your eyes. So if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html |
"Some insight," and not "a complete understanding." You, Jerry, take the former and think it's the latter.| You also don't understand that a change in entropy is still entropy...lol... |
So you're saying that a rate of change of a metric is exactly the same thing as the metric itself. You're saying that velocity and acceleration are identical, since acceleration is simply a change in velocity.| ...and one doesn't have to use delta to calculate it. I can use S = K log W to measure it and I can take two readings with that formula and plug it into deltaS = S2 - S1... |
That is a delta. How can you say "one doesn't have to use a delta to calculate it" and then blithely type "deltaS" as in your final equation?| ...but if I know that a system started with 0 entropy either formula is measuring a change in the system. |
So what? You're not saying anything relevant to your argument, here. The only systems that start with zero entropy are those at absolute zero temperature, or those with no information at all. Since nobody is making any such claims with regard to life, nobody can claim that comparing some figure to zero entropy makes any sense.| You seem such a math purest that you lose common sense in the subject. |
You've already said that common sense can be wrong, so if you appeal to common sense, you must be conceding the point.| SLOT doesn't define a tendency towards disorder in genomes because genomes are an open system |
Reference, please. |
You already agreed that open systems can have decreasing entropy, and you've already agreed that life is an open system, so what more do you need references for?| And yes it does, read the first part of the above reference: "If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience. Spend hours cleaning your desk, your basement, your attic, and it seems to spontaneously revert back to disorder and chaos before your eyes." |
Yeah, "some insight" is still not the same as "comprehension," no matter how many times you repeat the quote.| And while it is proper (and quite common) to say that entropy "tends" to increase in isolated systems, it's more accurate to state that entropy MUST increase or stay the same in one. |
They mean the same thing, but since we're not discussing an isolated system when we're talking about genomes (as you've already agreed), the above is irrelevant.Do yourself a favor and read this whole page on thermodynamic systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
When you do, you'll discover that open system thermodynamics is just as real as closed or isolated systems. It is just studied differently as one must define the boundaries before doing the the math. |
That's exactly right, and you haven't defined the boundaries with regard to life in any way, so you shouldn't have done any math.That's quite important!| If you don't understand open system thermodynamics, then you'll never discuss the subject intelligently. |
You're the one who fails to understand the subject matter, Jerry.You fail again.| ...ought to tell you that if physicists teach the heat death of the universe via SLOT, which they do, entropy has to increase in open systems as well. What, is someday the universe going to be so disorganized as to be a sea of randomly floating particles EXCEPT planet Earth because it is an open system? How silly is that? |
See how little you understand about thermodynamics? The universe as a whole is an isolated system (with lots of local, open systems in it), so far as we know. Or do you have evidence that our universe is exchanging energy and/or matter with something else?"An open system exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundings. Certainly, many evolutionists claim that the 2nd Law doesn’t apply to open systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
http://build-a-generator.net/2-law-of-thermodynamics-openclosed-irrelevant-to-creationevolution.html |
Huh, another creationist resource. Why not provide a citation to the original author's work, instead? Anyway, once again, you have found a resource which disagrees with the larger point to your argument:There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life. But anyway, Dr. John Ross is clearly talking about the ΔS = δq/ΔT part of SLOT, which does apply to everything (and in which, if ΔT is negative, then so would be ΔS, indicating a reduction in entropy). Or he's just asserting that a reduction in entropy in one place must be accompanied by an equal or larger increase in entropy somewhere else (in which case, he's changing the boundaries of "the system" without mentioning it). No matter what, he can't possibly be saying that "entropy MUST increase or stay the same" holds always for non-isolated systems, because if that were true then no amount of energy input to one could overcome that tendency, and our universe couldn't be anything more than an undifferentiated energy bath. The fact that we are here indicates that such an interpretation of SLOT is false, and I'd be surprised to see if the Ross quote in context makes such an argument.| Finally, yes, modern ID is science but I don't think Boyle lived in modern times, did he? |
Well, we don't give people who dream of flying to the Moon the title of Astronaut, so I don't know why you'd want to give any old Bible-thumper the title of IDist. You're saying that any creationist who happens to be some sort of scientist is an IDist, regardless of what they actually believe about what was created, how it was created and who did the creating. I mean, asserting that as many people as possible are IDists is good "big tent" politics, especially since lots of them will assume that ID means "poofing by God," but it means nothing with regard to the science. |
- 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 - 01/13/2011 : 07:01:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I'm confused. Where did this "observer of the universe" come from?!? Why does there have to be one? |
Where did it come from? Well, no one knows for sure, but Hawking muses that the particles in this universe came from a singularity event in a black hole in another universe,
But the observer is entirely necessary to make the reality of your universe, real indeed. If it takes an observer to collapse a wave into a solid, would you want to sleep in a bed or type on a laptop that was waves? Would you want to turn on the light switch and only solids came out? That's the reality I'm referring to.
Aaaah! OK. So this explains a lot. Tipler is the author of books like The Physics of Christianity and who has spent his career arguing "that quantum mechanics and general relativity require that the Cosmological Singularity - the Uncaused First Cause - consists of Three Persons but one Cause." Which sounds awfully Christian to me...
Indeed, it seems that actual trained physicists have trouble digesting his ideas. |
It IS Christian. One has to understand that after Tipler discovered the Omega Point, he went from a hard atheist relatively overnight to Christianity. This stressed his belief system and he began to write about all kinds of silly stuff. For example, he tried to show how Christ was resurrected using QM. I place no stock in his writings after the Omega Point because they are from the aspect of fundamental Christianity. However, the Omega Point has been peer reviewed and it walks.
This aside, it's really unclear what use it is, or how you can apply QM to postulate that entirely new species popped into existence (which seems to be how you understand things). How does the designer do it? Why? Does it have any predictive or explanatory power? Modern evolutionary theory does-- it has continued to hold up after more than a century of testing. ID has a ways to go before it even gets off the ground.
|
ID will never get off the ground and that is sad because there is truth in it. But please read the post back a ways to see how I believe the designer did it.
Yes, ID has both predictive and explanatory aspects to it. First, it can explain the existence of all of life. And it can predict the extinction of populations.
But I beg to differ in that Darwinism contributes anything. In fact, it's about as controversial as ID, always has been and always will be. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 08:18:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Liar. |
Well, you refuse to provide references even when I ask you for them. You it blow it off with one-liners and go to the next point. I mean you have made some incredible statements based on nothing more than your biased opinion.
| You quoted Schrödinger saying that he would ignore certain aspects of life in order to apply entropy calculations to it. You need to learn what the English idiom "forgetting at the moment..." means. |
And that means what? Here is the quote again: "The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle) and its equally famous statistical foundation. On pp. 69-74 I will try to sketch the bearing of the entropy principle on the large-scale behaviour of a living organism - forgetting at the moment all that is known about chromosomes, inheritance, and so on."
You are trying to ignore the fact that you claimed Schrodinger's entropy was something else other than SLOT. He tells you point blank what he is discussing: "The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle).....
Lost that point big time, didn't you. So now you're trying to state that he had to ignore certain aspects of life to apply Boltzmann's formula to it. No, that's not what he said, either.
Read the bold above. He said he was going to ignore genetics. The book is on entropy within the human body, not genetics, both of which act to stave off maximum entropy or death. He concentrated on thermodynamics.
You are struggling here, Dave.
| "Some insight," and not "a complete understanding." You, Jerry, take the former and think it's the latter. |
Poppycock. Quit twisting the point. He is explaining how SLOT works in nature by using messy decks and living rooms after you stated that that SLOT doesn't even apply in open systems as a tendency. Asimov says basically the same thing:
"another way of stating the 2nd law then is the universe is constantly getting more disorderly! viewed that way, we can see the 2nd law all about us. we have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. how difficult to maintain houses, machinery and our bodies in perfect working order, how easy to let them deteriorate. in fact all we have to do is nothing, everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down wears out, all by its self. this is what the 2nd law is all about"
| So you're saying that a rate of change of a metric is exactly the same thing as the metric itself. You're saying that velocity and acceleration are identical, since acceleration is simply a change in velocity. |
No, of course I didn't say this.
I know....lol......that's why I wrote deltaS = S2 - S1. My point was that S = K log W is not a delta yet one can still use the latter formula to calculate a change. Look, in a perfectly and newly designed genome, configurational entropy (considering the genes) would be zero. So if you use S = K log W to calculate entropy at a later time, whatever figure you get will also be the change in entropy because S1 is 0.
So what? You're not saying anything relevant to your argument, here. The only systems that start with zero entropy are those at absolute zero temperature, or those with no information at all. Since nobody is making any such claims with regard to life, nobody can claim that comparing some figure to zero entropy makes any sense.
|
No, now you are confusing configurational entropy with thermodynamic entropy again. You are going to have to pull your head out of Carnot's steam engine and concentrate on the arrangement of objects if you are going to understand this.
| You already agreed that open systems can have decreasing entropy, and you've already agreed that life is an open system, so what more do you need references for? |
This is irrelevant. I calculated the configurational entropy of the genome and it is rising. While entropy can decrease in open systems (nothing more complicated than a cooling cup of coffee) in that system, it didn't.
| See how little you understand about thermodynamics? The universe as a whole is an isolated system (with lots of local, open systems in it), so far as we know. Or do you have evidence that our universe is exchanging energy and/or matter with something else? |
You missed the point. The point was, if the entire universe is tending toward disorganization to the point that someday even open systems will be nothing more than a randomly floating sea of particles, how can you claim that there is no tendency toward that in open systems? Are open systems exempt? That's what you said, do you want me to pull up the posts?
If, in fact, open systems are exempt then won't the Earth still be here and everything else because ANYTHING in the universe is an open system other than the universe itself. I guess SLOT don't apply to anything. So are you saying also that there is no second law of thermodynamics, now?
Can you see that your entire argument in this area is simply illogical? If you cannot, then please explain this.
Huh, another creationist resource.
|
I traced that page. It didn't look like a creationist site to me--Just a guy wanting to argue his points.
Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.[/i][/bq]But anyway, Dr. John Ross is clearly talking about the ΔS = δq/ΔT part of SLOT, which does apply to everything (and in which, if ΔT is negative, then so would be ΔS, indicating a reduction in entropy). Or he's just asserting that a reduction in entropy in one place must be accompanied by an equal or larger increase in entropy somewhere else (in which case, he's changing the boundaries of "the system" without mentioning it). No matter what, he can't possibly be saying that "entropy MUST increase or stay the same" holds [i]always[/i] for non-isolated systems, because if that were true then no amount of energy input to one could overcome that tendency, and our universe couldn't be anything more than an undifferentiated energy bath. The fact that we are here indicates that such an interpretation of SLOT is false, and I'd be surprised to see if the Ross quote in context makes such an argument.
|
It makes the point EXACTLY as the quote did. I have read the article but don't see it anywhere on the Web anymore. But.....LMAO........
Where did you get that diatribe? None of that was in the original article. You just made that up along with the formula he supposedly used. If not, post to where you got that information from. You won't.
I think we have beat Boyle to death...... |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 11:21:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I'm confused. Where did this "observer of the universe" come from?!? Why does there have to be one? |
Where did it come from? Well, no one knows for sure, but Hawking muses that the particles in this universe came from a singularity event in a black hole in another universe,
But the observer is entirely necessary to make the reality of your universe, real indeed. If it takes an observer to collapse a wave into a solid, would you want to sleep in a bed or type on a laptop that was waves? Would you want to turn on the light switch and only solids came out? That's the reality I'm referring to. |
You assume that the observer has to be some conscious being. But does it? You seem to be suggesting that because of QM, there has to be a Yahweh. I find this to be ridiculous.
Aaaah! OK. So this explains a lot. Tipler is the author of books like The Physics of Christianity and who has spent his career arguing "that quantum mechanics and general relativity require that the Cosmological Singularity - the Uncaused First Cause - consists of Three Persons but one Cause." Which sounds awfully Christian to me...
Indeed, it seems that actual trained physicists have trouble digesting his ideas. |
It IS Christian. One has to understand that after Tipler discovered the Omega Point, he went from a hard atheist relatively overnight to Christianity. This stressed his belief system and he began to write about all kinds of silly stuff. For example, he tried to show how Christ was resurrected using QM. I place no stock in his writings after the Omega Point because they are from the aspect of fundamental Christianity. However, the Omega Point has been peer reviewed and it walks. |
I don't know about that. Or rather, while Tipler has published books and articles about the Omega Point in peer-reviewed publications, it doesn't seem clear to me that "it walks"; some simple Google-searching turns up more than a few hits that call it into question. For instance, Prof. Ellis' review of The Physics of Immortality in Nature isn't very kind, saying it is contains a "consistent misuse of language combined with a blithe disregard for the experimental testability of his completely arbitrary series of assumptions." And indeed, if the reviewer is at all honest in his descriptions of the book, then even I can understand its flaws.
In any event, the leap from atheist to Christian via this "Omega Point" is one of the stranger ones I've heard about.
| But I beg to differ in that Darwinism contributes anything. In fact, it's about as controversial as ID, always has been and always will be. |
Hardly. I could easily show you some of the explanatory power of evolution that ID would be hard pressed to show. Moreover, your assertion that "Darwinism contributes [nothing]" is laughable. Much of medical research is based on modern evolutionary theory. It would be an utter failure (and indeed impossible) if ID were in play. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 12:58:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Well, you refuse to provide references even when I ask you for them. |
Repeating the lie doesn't make it come true.| You it blow it off with one-liners and go to the next point. |
Still not true.| I mean you have made some incredible statements based on nothing more than your biased opinion. |
Not true.
| You quoted Schrödinger saying that he would ignore certain aspects of life in order to apply entropy calculations to it. You need to learn what the English idiom "forgetting at the moment..." means. |
And that means what? |
It means he ignored certain aspects of life to make his calculations.Here is the quote again: "The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle) and its equally famous statistical foundation. On pp. 69-74 I will try to sketch the bearing of the entropy principle on the large-scale behaviour of a living organism - forgetting at the moment all that is known about chromosomes, inheritance, and so on."
You are trying to ignore the fact that you claimed Schrodinger's entropy was something else other than SLOT. |
Entropy is something "other than SLOT." Even your own reference claimed that entropy was the measurement of SLOT, and not SLOT itself. "Entropy" and "SLOT" are not synonyms.
| He tells you point blank what he is discussing: "The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy principle)..... |
So what?
| Lost that point big time, didn't you. |
Not at all. You think "entropy" and "SLOT" are the same thing. They are not.So now you're trying to state that he had to ignore certain aspects of life to apply Boltzmann's formula to it. No, that's not what he said, either.
Read the bold above. He said he was going to ignore genetics. The book is on entropy within the human body, not genetics, both of which act to stave off maximum entropy or death. He concentrated on thermodynamics.
You are struggling here, Dave. |
No, you already agreed that life is not a system in equilibrium. Boltzmann's formula can only be used for systems in equilibrium, so you and Schrödinger both were wrong to use it on life. Schrödinger is just trying to make a point about life being an anti-entropic process in a book written for lay people, and so that book isn't particularly scientific and his errors can be forgiven for the sake of the discussion he was trying to have. You, on the other hand, expect people to agree with you that your calculations are both accurate and disprove Darwinism, and so you've got a much higher burden of proof to deal with. Yet you foolishly want to claim that if Schrödinger could do it, so can you. What is Life?, however, is not a thermodynamics textbook.
| Poppycock. Quit twisting the point. He is explaining how SLOT works in nature by using messy decks and living rooms after you stated that that SLOT doesn't even apply in open systems as a tendency. |
No, he said that those illustrations offer "some insight." Not that they are precise and scientifically accurate examples of SLOT.
Asimov says basically the same thing:
"another way of stating the 2nd law then is the universe is constantly getting more disorderly! viewed that way, we can see the 2nd law all about us. we have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. how difficult to maintain houses, machinery and our bodies in perfect working order, how easy to let them deteriorate. in fact all we have to do is nothing, everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down wears out, all by its self. this is what the 2nd law is all about" |
Another argument from authority. SLOT is "all about" the mathematics, and the mathematics don't say what these examples say. In fact, dust settling out of the air is an anti-entropic process driven by energy supplied by gravity. Calling a house getting dusty an example of SLOT is absolutely ridiculous.
| So you're saying that a rate of change of a metric is exactly the same thing as the metric itself. You're saying that velocity and acceleration are identical, since acceleration is simply a change in velocity. |
No, of course I didn't say this. |
Then you agree that S and ΔS are different, and your cited author is wrong to use the word "entropy" to refer to both of them.
| I know....lol......that's why I wrote deltaS = S2 - S1. My point was that S = K log W is not a delta yet one can still use the latter formula to calculate a change. |
Duh.| Look, in a perfectly and newly designed genome, configurational entropy (considering the genes) would be zero. |
Why? In a "perfectly and newly designed genome," is there no such thing as a synonymous substitution? Would a "perfectly and newly designed genome" have a different genetic coding than the rest of life?
There are lots of genomes (microstates) which correspond to a certain phylogeny (macrostate), thanks to synonymous substitution and the fact that most mutations don't immediately cause speciation. A "perfectly and newly designed genome" might (for the sake of argument) be the most optimal microstate, but that doesn't mean all the other microstates can be ignored.
To get a configurational entropy of zero with Boltzmann's formula, there can be only one microstate consistent with some macrostate, since only log 1 = 0. So now you'll need to defend two new ideas:
1) That your alleged designer designs genomes "perfectly," and
2) That there is only a single possible "perfectly and newly designed genome" (for each species, I assume).
| No, now you are confusing configurational entropy with thermodynamic entropy again. You are going to have to pull your head out of Carnot's steam engine and concentrate on the arrangement of objects if you are going to understand this. |
The only possible way for Boltzmann's formula to result in zero is for the number of microstates to equal 1, precisely. In thermodynamics, this only happens at absolute zero. In information theory, this only happens if no information is being transmitted (the same message, over and over and over again). Configurational entropy uses the same formula, and so presents the same conclusion: entropy is zero if and only if there is only one possible arrangement that is consistent with a particular macrostate.
This would mean that a mutated genome would have to be considered a whole different system, since you're suggesting that a perfect genome only has one microstate. In other words, a genome with only a single microstate cannot mutate and still be considered the same genome for comparison purposes. In still other words, if that's what you're saying, that's fine, but then you can't do your ΔS = S2-S1 math because the two S would be measuring different systems.| This is irrelevant. I calculated the configurational entropy of the genome and it is rising. |
You haven't defended your premise that it was ever zero. And since you're drawing a straight line over six million years of real-world data, it's quite likely that you will miss most trends. Heck, if there were ten deleterious mutations per generation for the first million years, then to average 1.6 deleterious, there must have been 0.01 beneficial mutations per generation over the next five million years to get to an average of 1.6 for the whole six million years. In other words, by focusing on the two ends only, you're hiding any local trends.
| While entropy can decrease in open systems (nothing more complicated than a cooling cup of coffee) in that system, it didn't. |
Except for all the problems that you need to ignore to accept your calculation as validly applicable to real life.
| You missed the point. The point was, if the entire universe is tending toward disorganization to the point that someday even open systems will be nothing more than a randomly floating sea of particles, how can you claim that there is no tendency toward that in open systems? Are open systems exempt? That's what you said, do you want me to pull up the posts? |
They are exempt until they stop exchanging energy or matter with their environments, in which case they'll become isolated and they will tend towards equilibrium until "dead."| If, in fact, open systems are exempt then won't the Earth still be here and everything else because ANYTHING in the universe is an open system other than the universe itself. |
No, eventually the Sun will go red giant and the Earth will melt inside it. But even if that weren't to happen, eventually the Sun will run out of fusable atoms and so the #1 energy source for life on Earth will go cold. Once that happens, Earth will become an isolated system, and its entropy will increase like in any other isolated system.| I guess SLOT don't apply to anything. |
If you're going to answer the questions wrongly on my behalf, then I don't need to be here, do I?| So are you saying also that there is no second law of thermodynamics, now? |
Of course not.| Can you see that your entire argument in this area is simply illogical? |
No, I can see that you're fabricating stupid answers to your own questions, and then attributing the stupid "logic" to me. It's just another example of how you lie.
| Huh, another creationist resource. |
I traced that page. It didn't look like a creationist site to me--Just a guy wanting to argue his points. |
No, he's arguing against evolution, from a creationist point-of-view, wondering if the anti-evolution SLOT argument is still any good. Of course, it was debunked decades ago.It makes the point EXACTLY as the quote did. I have read the article but don't see it anywhere on the Web anymore. But.....LMAO........
Where did you get that diatribe? None of that was in the original article. You just made that up along with the formula he supposedly used. If not, post to where you got that information from. You won't. |
Again: if entropy can never decrease in any system (because SLOT allegedly holds universally), then we wouldn't be here having this discussion. There are two parts to SLOT, one which defines the change in entropy for all systems, and the other is when that equation is combined with the Third Law of Thermodynamics to find that in isolated systems, ΔS must be greater than or equal to zero. This is all in Wikipedia.| I think we have beat Boyle to death...... |
No, you just don't want to answer the question: is every scientist who also happens to be a Christian an "IDist?" Is "belief in a designer" enough to make one an IDist, regardless of the details of that belief? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 14:33:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
However, the Omega Point has been peer reviewed... |
By whom?| Yes, ID has both predictive and explanatory aspects to it. First, it can explain the existence of all of life. |
How does it do so?| And it can predict the extinction of populations. |
How does it do so?| But I beg to differ in that Darwinism contributes anything. In fact, it's about as controversial as ID, always has been and always will be. |
"Darwinism" is not controversial among scientists. Pointing to the controversy among laypeople is just a disguised argument from popularity. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 15:14:28 [Permalink]
|
By the way, Jerry, now that you've used the conclusion to your entropy argument as a premise to it, you've made it circular and thus logically flawed. But I'll ignore that for the moment.
Let's focus, instead, on your assertion that a "perfectly" designed human would have zero configurational entropy. In protein-coding DNA (the kind that Eyre-Walker and Keightley looked at), triplets of nucleotides specify amino acids which get strung together into proteins. Let us consider the "perfect" human to be perfect because he has the set of proteins that are optimally efficient for functioning as a human.
Each nucleotide triplet can take on one of 22 "meanings," 20 of which are "add one of twenty amino acids to a protein," one of which is "start a new protein" and the last of which is "stop building the protein." Since there are four possible nucleotides in each of the three positions in the triplet, there are 64 (43) possible combinations of nucleotides in each coding triplet (codon).
But these 64 possibilities only code for 20 possible amino acids and two functions, so there is a lot of duplication. A CGA codon can be substituted for CGU, and an Arginine amino acid will still be added to the protein, for example. These synonymous substitutions can be made without any reduction in the efficiency of the proteins, since the resulting proteins will be identical.
A simple division (64/22) shows us that on average, there are 2.91 duplicates for every codon. Some have more and some have less, but looking at the averages allows us a conservative estimate. A sample set of DNA that's 41471 nucleotides long (Eyre-Walker and Keightley's sample) will have 41471/3 or 13823 (rounded down) codons. Since, on average, each codon has 2.91 duplicates which could be present without disturbing the perfectness of the resultant creature (and because of that, the system lacks dependency), the total number of unique genomes which could make a perfect human is equal to 2.9113823.
That's 2.47×106412 microstates consistent with (in fact, indistinguishable from on the basis of proteins) the "perfect human" macrostate.
So, with a W of 2.47×106412 (the natural log of which is 14765), I calculate the entropy of the "perfect" human (let's call it S0) to be 2.04×10-19. You calculated the entropy of modern humans (let's call it Snow) to be 9.98×10-23 (which we'll round up to 10-22), based on the same Eyre-Walker and Keightley study.
Therefore, given ΔS = Snow - S0,ΔS = 10-22 - 2.04×10-19
ΔS = -2.039×10-19 Therefore, because the change in entropy is negative, we can conclude with mathematical precision (and all those references) that the entropy in humans has decreased over the last six million years. |
- 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 - 01/13/2011 : 15:36:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You assume that the observer has to be some conscious being. But does it? You seem to be suggesting that because of QM, there has to be a Yahweh. I find this to be ridiculous. |
Yeah it has to be a conscious entity. Can you explain how a non-conscious object, such as a rock, could actually "watch" something happen?
Observe: "Observation is either an activity of a living being (such as a human), consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any datum collected during this activity."
Reference
And you don't have to call this Observer Yahweh, call it anything you wish; just calling it quantum mechanics is fine by me.
I don't know about that. Or rather, while Tipler has published books and articles about the Omega Point in peer-reviewed publications, it doesn't seem clear to me that "it walks"; some simple Google-searching turns up more than a few hits that call it into question. For instance, Prof. Ellis' review of The Physics of Immortality in Nature isn't very kind, saying it is contains a "consistent misuse of language combined with a blithe disregard for the experimental testability of his completely arbitrary series of assumptions." And indeed, if the reviewer is at all honest in his descriptions of the book, then even I can understand its flaws.
In any event, the leap from atheist to Christian via this "Omega Point" is one of the stranger ones I've heard about. |
Well, I have already posted the papers a few posts back. But does he have his detractors? Of course. Tipler writes:
"I first became aware of the importance that many non-elite scientists place on “peerreviewed” or “refereed” journals when Howard Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, said my book The Physics of Immortality was not worth taking seriously because the ideas it presented had never appeared in refereed journals. Actually, the ideas in that book had already appeared in refereed journals. The papers and the refereed journals wherein they appeared were listed at the beginning of my book. My key predictions of the top quark mass (confirmed) and the Higgs boson mass (still unknown) even appeared in the pages of Nature, the most prestigious refereed science journal in the world."
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
Sorry that's an iscid link, but that's apparently where Tipler released it on the Web.
What's interesting is that Tipler states on page 305 in his book that he was STILL an atheist (he had been since age 16) because he had not uncovered enough evidence at that point to substantiate the Omega Point.
| Hardly. I could easily show you some of the explanatory power of evolution that ID would be hard pressed to show. |
Have at it......
Moreover, your assertion that "Darwinism contributes [nothing]" is laughable. Much of medical research is based on modern evolutionary theory. It would be an utter failure (and indeed impossible) if ID were in play.
|
I'm sorry but Darwinism has nothing to do with medical research. You are thinking about genetics and evolution, not people popping out of monkeys and the like. There is a big difference between the two concepts. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 16:26:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
You assume that the observer has to be some conscious being. But does it? You seem to be suggesting that because of QM, there has to be a Yahweh. I find this to be ridiculous. |
Yeah it has to be a conscious entity. Can you explain how a non-conscious object, such as a rock, could actually "watch" something happen? |
No, you're just misinformed. A solution to the so-called 'measurement problem'-- or at least the groundwork for a solution-- appears to come from decoherence.
Well, I have already posted the papers a few posts back. But does he have his detractors? Of course. Tipler writes:
"I first became aware of the importance that many non-elite scientists place on “peerreviewed” or “refereed” journals when Howard Van Till, a theistic evolutionist, said my book The Physics of Immortality was not worth taking seriously because the ideas it presented had never appeared in refereed journals. Actually, the ideas in that book had already appeared in refereed journals. The papers and the refereed journals wherein they appeared were listed at the beginning of my book. My key predictions of the top quark mass (confirmed) and the Higgs boson mass (still unknown) even appeared in the pages of Nature, the most prestigious refereed science journal in the world."
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf
Sorry that's an iscid link, but that's apparently where Tipler released it on the Web. |
No one denies that some of Tipler's work is valid or valuable. It's some of the conclusions that he's drawn from them (note the review I linked earlier) that seem to be problematic.
| What's interesting is that Tipler states on page 305 in his book that he was STILL an atheist (he had been since age 16) because he had not uncovered enough evidence at that point to substantiate the Omega Point. |
I honestly couldn't care less what turned Tipler Christian or not. It doesn't make his "Omega Point" any more (or less) correct, nor does it make the ID extrapolations you've drawn from them correct.
| Hardly. I could easily show you some of the explanatory power of evolution that ID would be hard pressed to show. |
Have at it...... |
I'll get to that in another thread.
Moreover, your assertion that "Darwinism contributes [nothing]" is laughable. Much of medical research is based on modern evolutionary theory. It would be an utter failure (and indeed impossible) if ID were in play.
|
I'm sorry but Darwinism has nothing to do with medical research. You are thinking about genetics and evolution, not people popping out of monkeys and the like. There is a big difference between the two concepts.
|
It's hard to have a serious conversation with you when you use comments like this. You either have no real idea what evolution says, or you are simply dishonest. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
