Math prof attacks the "open" explanation for 2TD
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
Mr Jack said:
As bobmyers has said:
The Laws of Thermodynamics seem to be the most firmly established as any in physics.
As Isaac Asimov once titled an article on that subject, "If You Bet Against The Laws Of Thermodynamics You Will Lose".
Do you also believe in perpetual motion, and if not why not?
Mr Jack
New member
If OEJ would clarify what he means by fundamental then the question can be answered more fully, as it stands we are left to draw our own conclusions.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are certainly well established (although as I've pointed out before, they are violated at the quantum level), but that does not make them fundamental.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are certainly well established (although as I've pointed out before, they are violated at the quantum level), but that does not make them fundamental.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Mr Jack said:
Look it up. I'm not playing the definition game.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Those are theories. They aren't considered scientific laws.
I had been under the impression from reading the professor's article that he had presented a very easy and valid way to address the question of "open" systems.
It should be obvious that shining sunlight on something will not cause it to become more "ordered" or in technical terms to reduce the entropy of anything.
The "open" argument stinks and the professor has explained quite well why that is.
It should be obvious that shining sunlight on something will not cause it to become more "ordered" or in technical terms to reduce the entropy of anything.
The "open" argument stinks and the professor has explained quite well why that is.
Oh boy. The exact opposite, in fact, should be blatantly obvious to a lover of science.
He's right: as long as there is an energy input things can become more ordered. The problem is that he uses a false analogy in a way. Computers don't spontaneously arrange themselves NOT because the second law prevents it, but because of the near statistical impossibility. Some may counter that the statistical impossibility of humans coming together prevents that from ever happening. You're right. Humans didn't blow together one day. We started as a single replicating protocell.
But alas, the mathematician makes the mistake of titling his paper "Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure" thereby directly stating this is supposed to be an argument against evolution. I don't know how much time he has devoted to studying biology, but he may have noticed that life and television sets have some very different properties.
Life replicates. It recreates itself. But not exact copies, slightly different copies. And these copies have different traits. Good traits allow more replication. And hence, a good trait will have a selective advantage. TVs do not self replicate. They do not produce variable offspring who have different selective advantages. If he is trying to say that evolution is false because its like a TV set coming together and thats impossible, then he has made a false analogy--one so horribly blatant even he should have picked up on it.
The rest of his article goes on to rehash the typical intelligent design crap.
This is one of the most empty arguments I've seen. He just put words down and pretended to make a point. Nothing to see here.
"Laws and theories are the same thing. The only difference is what the fashion for naming them was at the time."
Not back in the days of Newton and alchemy. They equated "laws" and incantations. One did the proper procedure and said the proper prayer and God was forced to produce results.
Not back in the days of Newton and alchemy. They equated "laws" and incantations. One did the proper procedure and said the proper prayer and God was forced to produce results.
And if I understand you correctly, you would go on to say that a mutation in the DNA of this protocell caused changes, and the changed cell (selected by natural selection) received more mutations and got selected... on and on... until human DNA was finally the form of this DNA. Is that correct?
Roughly, yes. I agree with the general idea you're presenting. I disagree with the word "until". It implies both a goal and a finishing point, of which there is not. It's also worth noting that the mutations must be heritable. I'm sure you understand both of these points, just wanted to note them.
Stratnerd
New member
I think it much more likely that there wasn't a single protocell but a community of leaky protocells and leaky cells. Leaky referring to RNA/DNA being exchanged between organisms, a phenomenon we see in today's bacteria (and between bacteria and eukaryotes). So you have lineages evolving and exchanging functional genes.
No it's not. And even if it were, what about the atoms scattered randomly throughout the soil that the plant used to organized to create the seed?
It is not "downhill" from the seed, or embryo. In fact it is an uphill battle that takes place every single day. Ultimately, all the energy that is consumed to maintain our order comes from the sun.
Johnny said:
You are forgetting that the cell is essentially a "machine" and like human designed machines like refrigerators can use external energy to reduce entropy because these machines are built (designed?) to do so.
It is true that the energy to run any machine ultimately comes from the Sun, but without the machine being there entropy will inevitably increase. Of course, the entropy of the overall system, considering all inputs and outputs will increase, just as it does for the refrigerator.
Now the professor has nicely explained all this by observing that any energy coming from the Sun will not lead to a reduction of the entropy of the total system unless that input energy is itself at an average entropy level already below that of the overall system it is entering.
Of course if the sunlight strikes a plant then this "machine" is able to use such energy to lower, or at least maintain, the entropy level of the plant.
Thus, the professor seems to have falsified the "open system" argument used by evolutionist sites on the internet.
So I guess the unanswered question really is, "Where did the first entropy reducing machine come from?"
You're saying that the energy of a system CAN be decreased, but only by machines? You can go outside with your vial of chemicals and demonstrate that you don't, in-fact, need machines. All you need is free energy.
First, you'll remember that the professor was supposed to be mounting an argument against evolution. You'll also remember, being the sharp creationist that you are, that abiogenesis and evolution are very different. Evolution takes over with the first replicating cell. You've already said, "You are forgetting that the cell is essentially a "machine" and ... can use external energy to reduce entropy...". So it seems that you have refuted this professor's argument on your own.
Seems like you're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. As I mentioned before, you don't need a machine to reduce entropy.
Johnny said:
No, energy per se is not what I am discussing: it is entropy, a statistical concept that was originally formulated to cover heat transfer, but as the professor has pointed out, has more recently been expanded to cover a broader class of phenomena..
It would seem to some that this would be true. But the reality is that the mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection cannot reduce entropy, or in other words cause an existing creature to "morph" into one which has a higher degree of ordering than what has already been programmed into the fertilized egg cell.
On the contrary you do. Can you give us an example of entropy reduction that doesn't make use of a machine (machine in this case understood in it broadest sense)?