Creation vs. Evolution

[Yorzhik]

I know what mutational load is now. Populations with high mutational loads are more in danger of going extinct.

And mutational load comes from mutations in every subsequent generation. There is no mechanism to avoid it... unless you want to claim that Natural Selection does it.

 

[doloresistere]

It is the state in which matter and energy seek...just like all chemical reactions seek the lowest state of energy possible, unless energy is fed into a reaction and then a higher state can be achieved.

 

[Yorzhik]

Yes, I said they are changes. Fundamentally what causes mutations? Fundamentally, wouldn't it be the Second Law?.......Yorz



Cells have not evolved the capacity to replicate DNA without errors. It isnt the 2nd law of thermo.

That doesn't explain why it isn't the 2nd law. The most reasonable and obvious answer is that it IS the 2nd law. Do you have any theory what else could cause the errors?

 

[Yorzhik]

It is the state in which matter and energy seek...just like all chemical reactions seek the lowest state of energy possible, unless energy is fed into a reaction and then a higher state can be achieved.

Oops, we cross-posted. I see you already realize it is the 2nd law. Why did you say it wasn't?

 

[Yorzhik]

No, the second law of thermodynamics, governs thermodynamics.

And the chemical message system in the cell isn't governed by thermodynamics?

I suppose you are going to say the cellular systems don't rely on chemical reactions now?

 

[doloresistere]

And mutational load comes from mutations in every subsequent generation. There is no mechanism to avoid it... unless you want to claim that Natural Selection does it.

An increased mutational load comes from a population unable to adapt quick enough to a changing environment. More and more of the population is unable to live long enough to reproduce and may have nothing to do with the nature of the most recent mutations.

 

[doloresistere]

And the chemical message system in the cell isn't governed by thermodynamics?

I suppose you are going to say the cellular systems don't rely on chemical reactions now?

The chemical reactions in cells are fed with energy from outside the cell, thereby decreasing entropy for every increase in entropy through metabolism.

 

[Yorzhik]

and just because you say they are the same thing does not make it true. And given you were quoting me for what I think and am "admitting" then what I say and think is what matters.

No, if I'm accused of lying then it depends on what I think you said.

no, smart people from MIT will use entropy to measure entropy. They use disorder to explain it crudely to laymen and perhaps early students.

Right, so they use disorder to explain entropy even if only to laymen.

So is the entropy of a fridge (not including its surrounding environment) increasing, decreasing our staying the same after it is turned on?

Are you going to say that entropy doesn't affect the messages in a cell because of the input of energy?

You might want to say that, but just like a fridge, you need a machine to direct the energy. And the code for the next generation makes the machine that does this in the cell... you can see the problem with your theory then, correct?

fundamentally entropy causes nothing, it is a measure of what occurs due to the interaction of various forces but it is not a force of its own. Gravity causes things, magnetism causes things, the strong nuclear force causes things. But entropy doors not, it is an unavoidable emergent property from the interaction of these things.

As Prof Lambert says: Because entropy is an index of the second law's predictions about energy, the short word entropy is often used interchangeably for the cumbersome phrase, "the second law of thermodynamics".

In a chemical message system, like that in a cell, noise will enter because of the second law a.k.a. entropy.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

And the chemical message system in the cell isn't governed by thermodynamics?

I suppose you are going to say the cellular systems don't rely on chemical reactions now?

What effect are you supposing the distribution of heat has on mutation rate?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

FYI!! I'm going to tell you what the Lord told me; the facts. I hope it helps you all and that you STUDY your Bible and the first two books of Genesis to understand. Thank you. The earth has been here for a few billion years. Some of you seem to think that just by gradual changing, different species 'evolved'. Give God more credit than that. God created every creature on the earth, in each day/generation that is written in the Bible. This includes also when the dinosaurs were on earth. But, God wiped the screen blank a number of times indeed. In other words, He created and then obliterated, and formed each animal and bird, and critter and man/woman differently, each time changed in ways He saw fit. Just like He obliterated everyone but Noah and his family. There is NO EVOLUTION. Tell that to God when you see HIM. He has EVERY PART on how each animal/human was formed because He kept re-forming them and making them different each time. It's God's HANDIWORK here at stake, not "evolution's." From our own Adam and Eve being formed, this is the generation of our Adam.

You'll notice in the first chapter of Genesis, it says God "Created" each in their 'day' or 'generation' (time in which they were generated). We also cannot ascertain that, in the past million years, 24 hours was the 'day's' length then either. I think it was 22 hours. All that I do know is that He has revealed something to me to share with others, for their sakes. He did create the first Adam and Eve in six days and rested on the seventh. Believe me or not. It really doesn't matter. In the first chapter of Genesis, it says God created the beasts and birds, and all of that, before He created man on the sixth 'day' or 'generation'. Now follow all this closely and re-read it as much as necessary for you. In the SECOND chapter of Genesis, does it not say that the Lord God "Formed" man from the dust of the ground. And the Lord God saw that the man was lonely, and so He 'formed' the birds, and animals from the dust of the ground and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. So first, we have Adam being CREATED after the birds and beasts were CREATED, and yet in Genesis chapter two, it says the Lord God FORMED man BEFORE the beasts and birds.

You will also notice that in the first chapter, God said the fowl/birds were created from the waters, but in the second chapter, it says the Lord God FORMED the birds/fowl from the dust of the ground. Now it is time for people to know the truth because they are questioning the true existence of God. I happen to know that God CREATED man and woman once, and the Lord God wiped them from the face of the earth many times and improved man and animals and plants, etc. as He saw fit. That is why we find man's bones that are way older than 5,000 years, or "OUR" ADAM. There were Adams and Eves formed many times over the thousands of years and they were perfected and changed as the Lord God saw fit. That is why it is written, "and He called THEIR name Adam in the day they were created. That is why it is written, 'This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the image of God made he him/man.' I'm not sure that is the exact quote without looking it up right now. It is not a big matter. The Lord God has wiped the earth clean before and He will again. Remember Noah and his wife, of whom we are all descended from, therefore we are ALL Brothers and Sisters who don't get along well. Ishmael is the descendant of all of the Arab people. The next time the Lord God wipes this earth clean, He will again FORM a man from the dust of the ground, whether He forms the beasts beforehand or afterwards, and He will FORM another woman. And another book will be written for that Generation of Adam (and Eve). I hope I've explained this well enough for now. This is the Lord God's playpen down here (His VERY BELOVED CREATION) and He will change things as He will a dollhouse. It's His option. What are you going to do about it?? Forget your Evolution idea!! There is a Higher Power that oversees every little change in every creature He forms. That's all, just for now. Re-read and study, and look in your Bibles.
May the Lord God Continue to Bless the Lord Jesus,
For the Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thy enemies your footstool. He is doing just that. Can you understand any of this?? Please, if you have any comments, keep them civil and maybe kind? This is some of the info that the Lord told John of Patmos NOT to write (Rev. 10:4), when the seven thunders uttered their voices. People were not ready to handle it then, but we are ready now.

Praise His Greatness and His Intense Imagination, Which Is An Incredible Amazing Thing,

Michael Cadry

Go to the link below, then click on 'Book Copy', then 'SKU-text.pdf' and the Title Page of my book will come up. You can then read my book off of your computer screen/monitor with the up and down arrow cursor keys. The book is only 88 pages long and is double-spaced. A very easy and interesting read.

www.jesusreturningverysoon.com

 

[gcthomas]

Anyway, to answer your questions: Shannon says that noise enters at the transmission phase of communication. There is a lot of communication that takes place in the cell, most importantly from one generation to the next.

If it were true that mutations don't increase information entropy, then any noise entering a message would not increase information entropy. This is what prompted Weaver to say:

...
It is thus clear where the joker is in saying that the received signal has more information. Some of this information is spurious and undesirable and has been introduced via the noise. To get the useful information in the received signal we must subtract out this spurious portion.​

Didn't you think I'd see what you did there? YOU referred to information entropy while in your quote Weaver discusses the useful information in a deliberate communication (not genetics at all). As you know, the information entropy you keep referring to does not indicate usefulness, so EITHER you are talking about the entropy without reference to usefulness, OR you are referring to the usefulness of the information in getting naturally selected outside of the Shannon theory.

Enough dissembling: which one are you referring to?

And now for the questions you didn't answer: Are you saying that mutations don't happen, or if they do happen that they aren't entering at the transmission phase? Which is it?

I answered ALL your questions line by line. This question was asked and answered a long time ago. But since you are repeating yourself, let me repeat myself:

Mutations happen and are an essential feature of the modern synthesis. There is not discrete a discrete transmission phase separate from a receving phase, so a better fit would be a receive-errorcorrection-transmit regeneration process in one go, as I have described already but you ignored.

And while we are on ignoreg questions, are you aware that Shannon's theory shows that data transmission can have arbitrarily low error rates, so that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to communications systems in general, but only to heat transfer systems?

 

[Tyrathca]

No, if I'm accused of lying then it depends on what I think you said.

But you knew what my position on the subject was and you knew that I had said that entropy =/= mutational load. I know you knew these things because I told you and you directly responded to them in that thread on more than one occasion.

So if you didn't know YOU SHOULD HAVE and the only explanation for how you didn't would be either wilfully ignoring what I said or blatant stupidity. Do you at least admit now that you were wrong about your quote of me?

Right, so they use disorder to explain entropy even if only to laymen.

Yes. I feel like you are saying this like it supports your position somehow though.... A physicist calling entropy "disorder" is like a doctor calling an anticoagulant a "blood thinner". Both get the basic idea crudely across to a layman but neither is strictly accurate or rigorous terminology.

Are you going to say that entropy doesn't affect the messages in a cell because of the input of energy?

I'm saying that you can't say that entropy must always locally increase.

You might want to say that, but just like a fridge, you need a machine to direct the energy. And the code for the next generation makes the machine that does this in the cell... you can see the problem with your theory then, correct?

the Second Law of Thermodynamics says nothing about needing a "machine". Neither a machine nor design provides some magical property to violate entropy.

As Prof Lambert says: Because entropy is an index of the second law's predictions about energy, the short word entropy is often used interchangeably for the cumbersome phrase, "the second law of thermodynamics".

You quote this like it is a rebuttal of something I said... :idunno:

In a chemical message system, like that in a cell, noise will enter because of the second law a.k.a. entropy.

You are confusing Information theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics again, perhaps because they both use the word entropy (though for different things).

 

[Stripe]

I'm saying that you can't say that entropy must always locally increase.

We can, unless you can show a mechaism by which it is locally decreased.

 

[Tyrathca]

We can, unless you can show a mechaism by which it is locally decreased.

Ummmm... YOUR REFRIGERATOR! How can you be so daft as to claim that localised decreases in entropy can not occur when you must look at an obvious working example of it multiple times a day.

 

[Stripe]

Ummmm... YOUR REFRIGERATOR! How can you be so daft as to claim that localised decreases in entropy can not occur when you must look at an obvious working example of it multiple times a day.

:BRAVO:

Now show us the mechanism that reduces entropy within a cell so that it's information content is bettered.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Ummmm... YOUR REFRIGERATOR! How can you be so daft as to claim that localised decreases in entropy can not occur when you must look at an obvious working example of it multiple times a day.

I don't think really we even have to go that far. Unless I'm mistaken Yorz is speaking of some ubiquitous directional impact on the effect of mutations, right? Heat, variable or not isn't going to have that effect.

 

[gcthomas]

:BRAVO:

Now show us the mechanism that reduces entropy within a cell so that it's information content is bettered.

Thermodynamic entropy and information content are different concepts. Which one do you mean to use, unless you intend to equivocate?

 

[Stripe]

I don't think really we even have to go that far.

We know why you do not want to talk about fridges. :shut:

 

[gcthomas]

We know why you do not want to talk about fridges. :shut:

Yup, we do. It's because the YECs want to conflate thermodynamic entropy and the second law of thermodynamics with information entropy and the Shannon's Noisy Channel theory.

:bang::bang::bang:

YECs love to muddy the theoretical waters when clarity destroys their arguments!

 

[badp]

Yup, we do. It's because the YECs want to conflate thermodynamic entropy and the second law of thermodynamics with information entropy and the Shannon's Noisy Channel theory.

Information has to be stored somewhere. In the universe it's stored in matter which is subject to thermodynamic entropy. The two are very much connected.