Kosh

I think this is a accusation is more appropriately
leveled at the proffesional theologists.

"There is no money in Atheism" (I just love that
saying!).

Simulation

I asked the author of these posts to come over here, but he ignored the request. This is his latest reply.

The Case Is Not Closed

The original topic of universe expansion is an example of increase in disorder, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The other author, who has been responding in length to me, agrees with me on this. But it is how the 2nd law affects the earth’s origin where our agreements end.
The other author’s ideas show flaws because he contradicts himself.


1. To be, or Not to be (part of the 2nd law)
His own words were,

“There are no known exceptions to the Second Law.”

Then later he says,

“…the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not applicable {referring to evolution}; it deals with heat. Evolution does not. Ergo, evolution has nothing to do with the 2nd law, case closed.”

He wants the 2nd law to excluded from the discussion of origins because it contradicts evolution.

2. 2nd Law, and Thermodynamics
Despite the different definitions of Entropy, what do we observe as the overall trend in the scientific physical world? Breakdown, decay, and decrease in complexity. So, what does breakdown have to do with the origin of the universe? If things are breaking down, then the universe must have been more complex at it’s start, contrary to evolution, which starts with non complexity, an non living things changing into orderly, complex and living things.

3. Embryology
What he would have you think is that embryonic/human development shows an increase in information and complexity of that information, by his statement, “This is an obvious increase in order.” This statement is rather indistinct. He thinks that there is an actual increase in the information, but there is not. There is only an increase in cells that contain that information. When cells are formed, the replicate the information (DNA) for the whole body, and then only use part of it to determine exactly what kind of cell it will be. The amount of information (DNA) doesn’t increase or decrease! It doesn’t change in complexity. If the amount or order of information (DNA) were to change, you could have a mutation. But this doesn’t happen, and that is a dilemma for evolution. And even if a mutation (change in information) did occur, it kills the organism or impairs it 99.99% of the time. Embryologic development does not arise from disorder.

4. Snowflakes
I never said that you couldn’t change the level of entropy with input of energy. Examples of this are apparent, and no big surprise. But the trend is that an increase of energy into a system increases entropy. That is why all things is move toward breakdown and disorder. With energy, we can rebuild things, without it, we can’t.
With an input of energy, we can make water molecules form a pattern. But none of these flakes are in the same order; they are all random orders. Their tendency to be symmetrical and hexagonal is due to their molecular composition.
And yes, there is whit stuff outside, but the amount of the higher ordered snowflakes on the whole earth is rather miniscule to the amount of lesser-ordered water.

5. Qualifications of Hubble observers.
- Are any of them, quote, “Ph.D. level physicists?” Are any of them astrophysicists? Or even physicists?
Kenneth Lanzetta attended a state university.
Lisa Storrie-Lombardi studied astronomy at an institute of technology.
Bruce Margon is not a Dr. Bruce Margon, but is the most qualified of the three at the STSIB.
In the whole article, there is only one quote from Margon, which concludes that these studies are unconfirmed. If you look at the level of technicality in Micheal Oard’s article, with 13 references, doesn’t it make the article by Paul Recer seem vague and suggestive at best? This takes me to my next point.

6. Nebraska Man
Despite how much Nebraska man was ever accepted, the point is, he was accepted and contributed to evolutionary clout. My suggestion is that establishing fact from what these people have observed with the Hubble telescope would not be the wisest.

7. Asking Professors
Concerning if I’ve asked any professors, I’ve only witnessed them answering such inquiries. In one case, a Chemistry professor, with a Ph.D. in Chemistry, was asked how evolution, which depends on disorder changing to order, complies with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He paused and then continued lecturing.

8. Notes on Definitions
You say that you use the definition of Entropy that, “most physicists and thermodynamacists,” use, but then why isn’t that the definition, “most commonly used in chemistry?” My definition was found in a broadly used Chemistry textbook. At the engineering school I attended, the definition of Work was definitely an exam question when I had Chemistry I. By definition, work is, “the directed energy change resulting from a process.” The measurement of work by chemical processes was covered in several chapters. In a more advanced chemistry course, students have to use chemical processes to propel a vehicle (work).

In Closing
The important thing to remember is that, “There are no known exceptions to the Second Law,” including and contradicting evolution.

Daggah

I wasn't talking about an exception to the rule (and why is he treated responses as if they were all coming from one person?). I was treating it as what it is: a law dealing with heat. Again, evolution does not deal with heat. This isn't an exception; it's simply what evolution doesn't involve.

BLoggins02

Simulation: From an analytical perspective, you and your "theist" seem to be one in the same person. Your sentance, grammatical, and capitalization structure are entirely consistent, you never use quote marks to quote the source, and you have not made a distinct identification of the source of your comments.

I'm not attacking you, if you feel the need to proxy yourself from an argument in order to be once removed from the heat and responsibility, that is your perogative, but if you insist on asking us to respond to this person, please provide a hypertext link to the original posts by this person, I'm sure many of us would like to see it.

Lest we are wasting our time. Thanks.

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

Asha'man

I think your friend is still stumbling over the obvious.

He admits that snowflakes are a clear example of order being achieved in exchange for higher entropy elsewhere in the system. Another perfect example is hurricanes: ordered systems within the chaos of a global weather system, generated purely from solar heating.

With energy, order can be achieved in one part of a system, and disorder will be achieved elsewhere. Disorder is often seen as just heat.

The universe started with a great deal of energy, an immense amount. Ever since then, however, some of that energy has been slowly moving into background heat, or entropy. Since there is a lot of energy, and the process is slow, this will take a long time, but scientists expect the universe to die a heat death eventually (assuming something else doesn’t happen first). Everything will be the same temperature, so no work will be possible.

In the mean time, some of that energy has been creating order in very small locations, in exchange for more disorder elsewhere. One of those small locations is Earth. There is no violation of the 2nd law here, just a bigger picture than your friend is able to see. Just like the number of snowflakes is small compared to the amount of water on the planet, the amount of order on Earth is miniscule compared to the amount of waste heat in our solar system, which is a really tiny piece of our galaxy, which is a really tiny piece of our end of the universe.

Simulation

<a href="http://www.pbreview.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4dd04fbf7efc007d9c9f734b7496eaac& threadid=31770" target="_blank">Thread</a> from which Simulation is copying and pasting

Edited for formatting

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

BLoggins02

thank you simulation. Criticism withdrawn

Kosh

Will it at least be "a dry heat"?

Well put. Shakespeare really should be required
reading for all: "There are more things in
heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy..."

But this was my favorite one from that other
board:

"They say that if you are farther away from the center of gravity, time moves slower. Like a year
on Pluto is on revolution around the sun. Which I believe is 900 and some Earth years."

Pantera

I must be feeling really masochistic. A quick response.

</strong>

Technically it is applicable to evolution - it's applicable across the board. It's just that evolution does not result in a decrease in the overall entropy of the system, so is allowed by thermodynamics. Evolution is therefore not an exception to the 2LoT.



So it looks like he's just conceded. Entropy, as defined in thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution. So he wants to create his own law of physics, based it seems on his own subjective ideas of order and his own personal selected observations, to prohibit it. But this is not the 2LoT - it is an entirely different law of physics - one which does not actually exist. How does he plan to test it? To make an assertion like "we always see breakdown and decrease in complexity" and elevate it to a law of physics he needs an objective definition of complexity, a way of measuring it, and then a lot of measurements to show that it applies to a whole range of different situations. Even then a single case which runs against it will falsify it as a universal law. How does he plane to do this? (HINT - he doesn't - he's just going to go on making one assertion after another). Since we know evolution happens, his projected new law is falsified before he even proposes it.

Sigh. Once again he is trying to equate information with entropy, showing he doesn't know what he is talking about. Obviously the growth of an embryo involves an increase in complexity by just about any meaningful standard - you start with a couple of undifferentiated cells, and end up with specialised cells for different organs, intricate patterns of blood vessels etc. etc.

As for entropy, every time a protein is formed from constituent amino acids or a strand of DNA replicates, that is a decrease in the entropy of the chemicals - lots of small molecules combining to one large one. The local decrease in entropy is allowed because heat is released into the environment in the process - so there is still an overall increase in the entropy of the universe.

Until he can offer an objective definition of information, his ramblings about how an embryo does not gain information is not only irrelevent to the 2LoT, but completely meaningless. Anyway, an adult does contain more information than a fetus by my reckoning - ask a fetus what the capital of France is and it won't know.



Outright lie. Actually the overwhelming majority of mutations have no effect whatsoever, because over 90% of human DNA does not code for proteins and so does nothing. Any mutation in these areas will almost certainly have no effect.



Like evolution. Looks like he's giving up.



So what's his point? The amount of living material is much less than the amount of non-living material on the planet.



So is he admitting that it was not widely accepted and never made it into textbooks, ie that he was talking rubbish?



So on the strength of one professor not interrupting a lecture to answer a foolish question, he constructs a Paranoid Conspiracy Theory about how scinetists from all over the world, from a multitude of belief systems are all scared to say what they know to be true because of... because of... well because of something which will be very horrible I'm sure.



Probably because he doesn't understand his textbook. If he thinks that local decrease in entropy cannot happen spontaneously he certainly didn't understand it.

<strong> Correct, there are no known exceptions. Evolution is not an exception. Case closed.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Dr Rick

An increase in order is not synonymous with an increase in genomic "information." Simulation either doesn't understand a very basic concept and the different meanings of two distinct words or he is once again attempting to erect a Strawman fallacy.

The total degree of order within a multicellular organism is greater than that of one of its component cells even if all of the cells contain similar genomes.

This is the second time this fallacious argument has been posted by Simulaton. Embyros and other living organisms increase order within themselves as they grow and devolop:

All living creatures take in energy from their surroundings to offset the natural tendency toward increasing entropy (and its ultimate consequences, death and total decomposition). But while this allows for small-scale, individual growth in size and complexity (increasing order, information, and available energy, meaning a local decrease in entropy), the entropy of the ambient as a whole increases. As the Sun emits energy into space, its entropy increases irreversibly. A plant uses a tiny fraction of this energy, and chemicals from its environment, to decrease its own entropy as it grows. Put the plant in an airtight, lightproof container, though, and this now-isolated system will quickly succumb to the Law of Entropy: It will die and decompose as it approaches its maximum entropy state. from <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/laws.html" target="_blank">The Laws of Nature: A Skeptics Guide</a>

The growth of a living organism is one such example.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>