Creation vs. Evolution

[Daedalean's_Sun]

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.

This is to say that because one affects the other, then both operate according to the same laws.

A story is stored in a book, the book is governed by gravity, therefore the story is governed by gravity ergo no characters in that story can fly.

 

[noguru]

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!

Which muddies their own minds, hence their desire for confusion is quite obvious to those who prefer clarity.

 

[noguru]

This is to say that because one affects the other, then both operate according to the same laws.

A story is stored in a book, the book is governed by gravity, therefore the story is governed by gravity ergo no characters in that story can fly.

I would not worry about badp's perspective. He demonstrates with his slogan/motto that he has no clue about what he himself represents. He is just another fraudulent human being, trying to pass off his religious ideas as science.

 

[Stripe]

This is to say that because one affects the other, then both operate according to the same laws.

A story is stored in a book, the book is governed by gravity, therefore the story is governed by gravity ergo no characters in that story can fly.

Nope.

Evolutionists love nonsense analogies.

Here is a sensible one: A story is stored in a book, the book is governed by gravity, therefore the story is governed by gravity ergo no letters in that book can fly.

Unless you can describe a mechanism by which gravity can be temporarily overcome.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

So, did you read my long post?? Sorry about that, but it had to be long. Well, do you now understand how Creation can be true, considering we can find bones of men or women from more that 6,000 years ago. We can find dinosaur bones. There were no dinosaurs when the Lord God formed Adam. So how do you explain that??

God Bless You Tons,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

:BRAVO:

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

Yorzhik (and you by extension of agreeing) were claiming that entropy must always increase even locally. You said you could claim this :

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.

I have shown a mechanism where by it (entropy) is locally decreased, ergo I have reached your criteria for you and Yorzhik to stop claiming that entropy must ALWAYS increase.

As far as the cell we know it consumes energy for countless metabolic processes and as a result entropy does not accumulate, do you want me to go through a list of all the ions moved and the proteins formed etc? Should I charge per the hour or would it be just quicker if I mailed you a textbook. For an analogy to the refrigerator, the human body pumps blood throughout the body which carries heat, this is also brought to the surface where it can be cooled by cells there releasing sweat which cools us when it evaporates (endothermic reaction) - thus alowing us to decrease our temperature even when the environment around us is warmer than we are (just like a refrigerator!).

As for me having to show a specific mechanism regarding entropy and "information bettered", no I don't think I do. The question is nonsensical given that entropy has nothing to do with the value of information and you have provided no definition of what you mean by "bettered" nor any way to measure/quantify it. We know that a lot of energy is consumed in metabolic process to maintain DNA's structure, resulting in entropy not accumulating, but that is about as far as I need to go. You give me that and perhaps I'll have a crack at this "information bettered" thing, that or stop confusing separate fields of science and inventing your own terminology.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Nope.

Evolutionists love nonsense analogies.

Here is a sensible one: A story is stored in a book, the book is governed by gravity, therefore the story is governed by gravity ergo no letters in that book can fly.

No, Stripe, the story isn't governed by gravity, the ink is.

 

[Stripe]

No, Stripe, the story isn't governed by gravity, the ink is.

Good point. You might want to change your stupid analogy. :up:

 

[Stripe]

Yorzhik (and you by extension of agreeing) were claiming that entropy must always increase even locally.

You missed something.

I have shown a mechanism where by it (entropy) is locally decreased

Right, a fridge. Designed to keep food cold. Then you launch into the designs that keep a body functioning. What you don't do is explain how evolution is powered. What is the mechanism that adds information to a cell?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Good point. You might want to change your stupid analogy. :up:

If it was a good point, and your only objection successfully rebutted, then why would I want to change my analogy?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

You missed something.
Right, a fridge. Designed to keep food cold. Then you launch into the designs that keep a body functioning. What you don't do is explain how evolution is powered. What is the mechanism that adds information to a cell?

 

[Stripe]

If it was a good point, and your only objection successfully rebutted, then why would I want to change my analogy?

:chuckle:

Evolutionists.

 

[Tyrathca]

You missed something.
Right, a fridge. Designed to keep food cold. Then you launch into the designs that keep a body functioning.

Exactly, I have provided the example you requested and disproven you and Yorzhik's claim that localized decreases in entropy can't ever occur. Due to this we can now see that evolution is not impossible based on thermodynamics, so now all you have left is to complain that the "mechanisms" don't catch your ever shifting goal posts.

What you don't do is explain how evolution is powered.

evolution is "powered" by all those "designs" which keep the body functioning, it's DNA replication and the organisms reproducing in an environment which has selective pressures.

What is the mechanism that adds information to a cell?

That is a separate question and has nothing to do with your objection based on entropy (which we can now see is bunk anyway).

If you would kindly define what you mean by information (since there are multiple definitions) and I presume what constitutes "better" information and how you measure it (since this is what you always follow up with - though rarely seem to define). If you could do that them perhaps I could have a crack at answering this completely separate question you have added here.

 

[Stripe]

I have provided the example you requested and disproven you and Yorzhik's claim that localized decreases in entropy can't ever occur.

Unfortunately, you have provided an example that can be explained -- and I clearly said that a local decrease must have a mechanism to explain it.

It is rather silly of you to think that we believe work cannot be done.

Due to this we can now see that evolution is not impossible based on thermodynamics

Nope. You have not provided the mechanism that turns sunlight into information.

evolution is "powered" by all those "designs" which keep the body functioning

We are asking you to provide the mechansim that built those functions. You say the mechanism is evolution. The challenge is to show how evolution does not contradict the second law.

It is question-begging nonsense to then claim that the mechansim that powers evolution is also the result of evolution.

it's DNA replication and the organisms reproducing in an environment which has selective pressures.

Question-begging nonsense.

That is a separate question and has nothing to do with your objection based on entropy

Actually, it is exactly the issue.

If you would kindly define what you mean by information (since there are multiple definitions) and I presume what constitutes "better" information and how you measure it (since this is what you always follow up with - though rarely seem to define). If you could do that them perhaps I could have a crack at answering this completely separate question you have added here.

In our conversation, "information" is the ability a genome has to generate bodily features and functions. Evolutionists believe all life descended from a universal common ancestor that presumably could not see or hear (for example). Today we have numerous kinds that can see and hear.

What mechanism converted sunlight into this new information?

Your answer has already been given: You say evolution is the mechanism that converted sunlight into information.

However, this conversation started with a challenge to the idea that changes accrue due to random mutations and natural selection. The challenge to evolution is from the second law. You need to provide a mechanism that adds information to the genome. Claiming that evolution adds this information is to answer the challenge to your idea with the assertion that your idea is correct. It is begging the question.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

He doesn't have to provide a mechanism to explain it Stripe, all he has to do is to produce a single counter-example. You're moving the goalposts.

 

[Stripe]

He doesn't have to provide a mechanism to explain it Stripe, all he has to do is to produce a single counter-example. You're moving the goalposts.

A counterexample to what? I have not made a claim, I have issued a challenge. The challenge is that evolution defies the second law.

I could have said a fridge defies the second law. Then you could rightly say the mechanism to produce a local decrease in entropy that keeps the interior cold is provided for by a machine that depressurizes a gas.

Any time you want to claim that there is work being done -- that there is a local decrease in entropy -- you need to provide the mechanism through which it is achieved.

Evolutionists, when challenged over their ideas, claim that evolution is the mechansim by which evolution works. This is just as nonsensical as if you claimed fridges work because fridges work. It is question-begging nonsense.

 

[gcthomas]

A counterexample to what? I have not made a claim, I have issued a challenge. The challenge is that evolution defies the second law.

I could have said a fridge defies the second law. Then you could rightly say the mechanism to produce a local decrease in entropy that keeps the interior cold is provided for by a machine that depressurizes a gas.

Any time you want to claim that there is work being done -- that there is a local decrease in entropy -- you need to provide the mechanism through which it is achieved.

Evolutionists, when challenged over their ideas, claim that evolution is the mechansim by which evolution works. This is just as nonsensical as if you claimed fridges work because fridges work. It is question-begging nonsense.

Stripe, the definition of information you described is not related to information entropy, which itself is not subject to the second law.

Your argument is still two large steps from reality.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, the definition of information you described is not related to information entropy, which itself is not subject to the second law.

Everything is subject to the second law.

Everything except evolution, that is. :chuckle:

 

[noguru]

A counterexample to what? I have not made a claim, I have issued a challenge. The challenge is that evolution defies the second law.

I could have said a fridge defies the second law. Then you could rightly say the mechanism to produce a local decrease in entropy that keeps the interior cold is provided for by a machine that depressurizes a gas.

Any time you want to claim that there is work being done -- that there is a local decrease in entropy -- you need to provide the mechanism through which it is achieved.

Evolutionists, when challenged over their ideas, claim that evolution is the mechansim by which evolution works. This is just as nonsensical as if you claimed fridges work because fridges work. It is question-begging nonsense.

No, we have consistently identified the specific mechanisms through which genetic variation and natural selection work. You continuously/conveniently ignore those subjects. If you are still in a quandary about how biological life gets raw energy from its surroundings, you can easily do some research on metabolism, chemosynthesis, photosynthesis...Or you can go back and look at all those posts you have chosen to overlook.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

A counterexample to what? I have not made a claim

No, but Yorzhik has, and a claim that you have implicitly agreed with. To refute it, requires only a single counter-example which was already provided.