The Second Law fallacy

chilehed · #**151** 31st July 2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by busterdog

Speech.

Finger painting.

Prayer.

Salvation.

Even the differentiation of cells in the embryo is not well defined and appears to violate the SLoT.

The healing of wounds.....

You claim that these violate the 2nd Law, but you studiously avoid demonstrating that you're correct. Unless you provide a thermodynamic analysis, you might as well claim that Westminster Abbey is a cabbage. This is, after all, an issue of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

chilehed · #**152** 31st July 2009, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by busterdog

...For DNA to be what it is, recombine, reorganize and allow life to advance (presumptively), it must be very much unlike the closed systems analyzed by SLoT...

Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. DNA is a molecule, and the processes that you mention are chemical processes which all comply with the 2nd Law. You quite simply do not know what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong: provide an actual thermodynamic analysis that supports your position.

busterdog · #**153** 1st August 2009, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by chilehed

Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. DNA is a molecule, and the processes that you mention are chemical processes which all comply with the 2nd Law. You quite simply do not know what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong: provide an actual thermodynamic analysis that supports your position.

Like all the other fakers on the forum, you say you have to do the math and then you never do it. So, I dont think so.

You can keep your straw man, thank you very much.

There is no thermodynamic model for the cause of organization of information. The frank admission of the evolutionists is that DNA just tends toward reorganization for new and meaningful information and without any cause in terms of energy or otherwise for the tendency.

So, I aint your boy.

metherion · #**154** 1st August 2009, 10:48 AM

Like all the other fakers on the forum, you say you have to do the math and then you never do it.

Um. No. The claim that 'such and such a system violates the SLoT' originate with you. And by 'you' I mean the people putting forth the argument. Positive claims require positive evidence. You have made the claim, you have access to a resource that will allow you to give positive evidence for that claim. It is up to you to do so. Not us.

Oh, and by the by... I've spent 3 years of college 'doing the math' in every class since Thermo I I took in sophomore year of college. I've been doing the math in all sorts of systems, from chemical reactors to cups of water on the countertops in and out of sunlight. Here's a few hints. 1. Information isn't covered by thermodynamics. 2. breaking and reforming chemical bonds, always results in at best NO INCREASE in entropy. 3. Cellular reproduction of DNA involves splitting all the bonds in a strand of DNA once and then remaking them TWICE to make the two sets of DNA for the cells after the bond breaking. Which actually requires more energy than you'd expect because of the untwisting of the double helix to get at the bonds, thankyouverymuch.

There is no thermodynamic model for the cause of organization of information.

THAT. IS. BECAUSE. THE. ORGANIZATION. OF. INFORMATION. IS. NOT. THERMODYNAMICS.

The frank admission of the evolutionists is that DNA just tends toward reorganization for new and meaningful information and without any cause in terms of energy or otherwise for the tendency.

Dude. You SERIOUSLY need to get off the blasted 'information is a violation of the SLoT' kick. Information and the SLoT are about as far apart as advanced calculus is from French lit.

Furthermore, DNA does NOT reorganize, it and many other polymers self-replicate when sufficient energy is available. There is nothing anti-SLoT about that. The energy just has to be available in the system.

Metherion

chilehed · #**155** 1st August 2009, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by busterdog

Like all the other fakers on the forum, you say you have to do the math and then you never do it. So, I dont think so.

You can keep your straw man, thank you very much.

There is no thermodynamic model for the cause of organization of information. The frank admission of the evolutionists is that DNA just tends toward reorganization for new and meaningful information and without any cause in terms of energy or otherwise for the tendency.

So, I aint your boy.

You also aren't qualified to speak on this subject. are you familiar with the term "expert witness"?

Smidlee · #**156** 2nd August 2009, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by metherion

THAT. IS. BECAUSE. THE. ORGANIZATION. OF. INFORMATION. IS. NOT. THERMODYNAMICS.
...
Dude. You SERIOUSLY need to get off the blasted 'information is a violation of the SLoT' kick. Information and the SLoT are about as far apart as advanced calculus is from French lit.

There are some who thinks information and thermodynamics are very connected.
"Decoding The Universe" by Charles Seife :

The laws of information had already solved the paradoxes of thermodynamics; in fact, information theory consumed thermodynamics. The problems in thermodynamics can be solved by recognizing that thermodynamics is, in truth, a special case of information theory. Now we see that information is physical, by studying the laws of information we can figure out the laws of the universe. And just as all matter and energy is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, all matter and energy is subject to the laws of information. Including us.

Though living beings seem as if they are inherently different from computers and boxes of gas, the laws of information theory still apply. We human beings store information in our brains and our genes just as computers store information in their hard drives, and in fact, it seems that the act of living can be seen as the act of replicating and preserving information despite Nature’s attempts to dissipate and destroy it.

"Information Loss as a Foundational Principle for the Second Law of Thermodynamics" by T.L. Duncan, J.S. Semura

"In this paper we further develop and explore the perspective in which the second law is fundamentally a law of information dynamics"

metherion · #**157** 3rd August 2009, 02:29 AM

There are some who thinks information and thermodynamics are very connected.

I actually went and read the paper you linked. It is rather interesting, but has a LOT of flaws if you are trying to use busterdog's 2nd law argument with it.

1. Where is information quantized? Where is energy quantized as information? That was nowhere in the paper.

2. Upon reading the paper, the examples it gave about using information theory to resolve 2nd law problems were all quantum effects. Classical thermodynamics breaks down on the quantum level. So does relativity, and several other things. None of the processes mentioned in the SLoT argument to evolution are quantum.

3. According to other common creationist arguments, any mutation results in a 'loss of information'. Well, guess what. When cells reproduce to differentiate or repair damage, mutations happen. So, uh... according to common arguments, information is lost. So one or the other is wrong. And this contradiction, now that it has been brought to the forefront, must be known. So get around to quantizing what information is, how it relates to thermodynamic energy, and figure out which one you want to use. Unless you use the definition I talk about in (4), in which case extra care needs to be taken to avoid equivocation, which has not been done even in this thread..

4. Oh by the way. Information, where information can be overlapped to thermodynamics, consists of (if i am understanding information theory correctly) the amount of representation of the system that CANNOT be obtained by macroscopic variables. For instance, adding heat to water gives the water more energy, so it can be in more microscopic states that will NOT be shown by a macroscopic variable such as overall temperature of the water, so the heated water has more information. This type of information has NOTHING to deal with the type of information in say... a book, or a DNA strand, or a human mind.

Confusing the two is equivocation, which is a fallacy. Since the two definitions of information are not the same, swapping between them is not correct. And the second type, information a la books and codes and libraries and so on is NOT governed by thermodynamics.

5. Just saying that thermodynamics and information are related does not mean that creationists can get away with claiming it breaches the SLoT and NOT: quantize thermodynamic energy in terms of information, quantize whatever information they are referring to, DO AN INFORMATION BALANCE, and show it has been violated. If those are not done, the claim has no evidence and no validity.

And just so it's out there... I was wrong about the SLoT and information. However, FOR THE RECORD, I want it clear that:
A: genetic information has not been quantized.
B. Busterdog's organization, as well as genetic information, have not yet been shown to be the type of 'information' that information theory and by extension the SLoT's information theory version deals with, as the term information can be easily equivocated.

Metherion

Smidlee · #**158** 3rd August 2009, 06:43 PM

I do understand the are different forms of information yet the paper does seem to suggest a gain in one form will cost in a another form. When it comes down to it all of this deals with probability.
It's seem the evolutionist think that random mutation does not have a cost when it come to information especially over great lengths of time. Genetic information is one of the easiest forms of information to destroy as it's constantly needs to be repaired.

metherion · #**159** 3rd August 2009, 07:41 PM

I do understand the are different forms of information yet the paper does seem to suggest a gain in one form will cost in a another form.

I went through the article, and believe I have found teh section you are referring to. Is it the middle paragraphs on page 5?

In this part of the paper, both paragraphs talk about QUANTUM problems. Which are outside the realm of classical thermodynamics. Furthermore, DNA and cell devision and genomes are not quantum phenomena.

Secondly, it gives examples of the types of information that can be lost. There is the information about microstates, which can be turned into information about locations of the specific atoms in quantum situations, or information in quantum entanglement. While I will freely admit I have no idea what in the hell quantum entanglement is, there can only be quantum entanglement in quantum phenomena. Since none of the situations talked about are quantum... it doesn't apply.

When it comes down to it all of this deals with probability.

Yes. This is true. This is pretty much the heart of information theory. Informational entropy is based on probability.

It's seem the evolutionist think that random mutation does not have a cost when it come to information especially over great lengths of time.

Well, you see... it doesn't.

I went and preformed a google search for 'relationship between information and thermodynamic entropy'. One of the first links was Thermodynamic Entropy and Information, which, being from a university site, I would tend to trust. If you read it (and boy, is it fascinating!), you come across the following statement.

Originally Posted by that link I just cited earlier in my post

Information gained is equal to entropy lost.

Which really has some interesting ramifications on your version of the SLoT argument.

You see, either 'genetic information' (which STILL hasn't been defined or quantized) does or does not follow information entropy. Either it is that kind of information, or it isn't. There are no other choices.

If it DOESN"T, than the entire point is moot.

If it DOES, then since the chemical reactions involved in genetic mutations and therefore changes in genetic information increase the entropy of the universe, and

Originally Posted by site i linked to earlier

S and H (thermodynamic and Shannon entropy) are equivalent, in that S is directly proportional to H

so when a reaction increases entropy, the total information between all types of possible information is LOST, and change in genetic information is more than accounted for, so the argument STILL fails.

Metherion

EDIT: Oh, and SUPPOSEDLY isn't 'genetic information only LOST thru mutations, never added" or some bunk like that? So... according to YEC arguments it WOULD follow the SLoT. Just sayin. Internally inconsistent arguments for the LOSE.

Assyrian · #**160** 4th August 2009, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by metherion

Secondly, it gives examples of the types of information that can be lost. There is the information about microstates, which can be turned into information about locations of the specific atoms in quantum situations...

That's not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is it?