Difference between a fact ,theory and a guess

[Justatruthseeker]

Funny thing is I got this wrong, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics stating entropy in the universe is always increasing, or order does not arise out of chaos, rather chaos arises out of order. For evolution to be true, a disordered universe has to become more disordered while creating greater order and complexity out of simpler parts on such a minor scale that this actually increases entropy or else it will not happen.

It is why we cannot create a never ending machine, because it will run out of fuel.
I have always wondered why such a basic principle that goes against evolution is just ignored though you can measure it by just lighting a fire.

Because you can't get evolution if you do not ignore the facts.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Funny thing is I got this wrong, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics stating entropy in the universe is always increasing, or order does not arise out of chaos, rather chaos arises out of order. For evolution to be true, a disordered universe has to become more disordered while creating greater order and complexity out of simpler parts on such a minor scale that this actually increases entropy or else it will not happen.

You're correct that it is the 2nd LoT that is relevant here, but you have the definition & interpretation wrong. It refers to the entropy of isolated systems. It's arguable whether the universe counts as an isolated system, but the Earth certainly isn't.

Open systems can use an entropy gradient to drive local decreases in entropy at the expense of a greater overall increase in entropy. The generation of complexity reduces local entropy, but increases the overall rate of increase of entropy, which has led to the suggestion that systems tend to maximise the rate of increase of entropy by this means.

In systems that start with exceptionally low entropy (e.g. our universe) complexity arises after the initial surge of entropy increase, but before the rate of change of entropy becomes too low - hence the relatively early formation of stars, galaxies, etc.

It is why we cannot create a never ending machine, because it will run out of fuel.

No, that would be the 1st or 2nd LoT.

I have always wondered why such a basic principle that goes against evolution is just ignored though you can measure it by just lighting a fire.

It's ignored because it's wrong (and a fire can produce more complex products than it starts with).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is non-randomly? Intelligently directed?????

Lol! No; seriously, do you really think the only alternative to randomness is intelligent direction?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

abiogensis hypotheses are just this.
Now we have had the theory of evolution and its projection for over 100 years, with all the modern understanding of life, biological systems, and still there is not a good actual model of how it worked.

Correct, although you're comparing apples with oranges. The ToE, as Darwin & Wallace described it, was at the scale of individuals and populations; a molecular basis for heredity didn't come until the 1940s. Abiogenesis research is necessarily molecular, and wasn't started until the 1950s.

There's also the problem that we don't know the environmental conditions under which life got started, and we don't have any examples of what the earliest life was like; whereas we know the conditions for, and have many examples of, current life.

We can artificially create part of the systems of life, but this creates massive manipulation and very controlled environments.

Only in as much as we have to simulate plausible early Earth environments in the lab (it may be necessary to explore potential chemical pathways outside the early-Earth regime, but only with a view to discovering the chemistry required).

So being truly scientific, life creation must be very rare and very unusual.

That's not a scientific statement until you know how life arose. But it is quite plausible that it occurs very rarely - but you should also consider that, given enough time and opportunity, even the most unlikely events will happen. In this case, we have hundreds of millions of years and a whole planet of opportunities working at a molecular scales and speeds. If that's not enough opportunity for you, also consider that from the Kepler probe observations there are estimated to be around 19 sextillion (19,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) Earth-like planets in the observable universe on which it could potentially occur.

At what point one admits it is actually a creative act.

Depends what you mean by, 'a creative act' - does the formation of a snowflake count? a galaxy?

Saying this does not admit who or what did the creative act, just it happened. Is this such a hard thing to admit the possibility of?

Scientists are quite happy to accept that it just happened - because it clearly did happen(!); they're just curious to discover the mechanisms, i.e. how it happened.

I am happy to admit life could be a system of some sort without a consciousness that I understand or could define...

Not sure what you mean by this - the vast majority of life does involve systems without consciousness.

 

[Ophiolite]

I just say to all - be careful what you think science is telling you.

This applies in spades to you as you do not understand the QM options. That is amply demonstrated by your equating the Copenhagen and Many Worlds Interpretations when they are actually radically different. I note you have not even had the good grace to acknowledge your error. 10 out of 10 for pestistence. 1 out of 10 for integrity.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Correct, although you're comparing apples with oranges. The ToE, as Darwin & Wallace described it, was at the scale of individuals and populations; a molecular basis for heredity didn't come until the 1940s. Abiogenesis research is necessarily molecular, and wasn't started until the 1950s.

There's also the problem that we don't know the environmental conditions under which life got started, and we don't have any examples of what the earliest life was like; whereas we know the conditions for, and have many examples of, current life.

Only in as much as we have to simulate plausible early Earth environments in the lab (it may be necessary to explore potential chemical pathways outside the early-Earth regime, but only with a view to discovering the chemistry required).

That's not a scientific statement until you know how life arose. But it is quite plausible that it occurs very rarely - but you should also consider that, given enough time and opportunity, even the most unlikely events will happen. In this case, we have hundreds of millions of years and a whole planet of opportunities working at a molecular scales and speeds. If that's not enough opportunity for you, also consider that from the Kepler probe observations there are estimated to be around 19 sextillion (19,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) Earth-like planets in the observable universe on which it could potentially occur.

Depends what you mean by, 'a creative act' - does the formation of a snowflake count? a galaxy?

Scientists are quite happy to accept that it just happened - because it clearly did happen(!); they're just curious to discover the mechanisms, i.e. how it happened.

Not sure what you mean by this - the vast majority of life does involve systems without consciousness.

I believe there will always be till I die, a plausibility view of either a faith position in a creative God, or a possible system origin. I suspect the real issue is about how we choose to relate to love and our relationship to others.

Is existance an obvious inversion? We live on a planet, with 40 miles of air above us, with life pouring out of this garden, but everywhere else barren, empty, vast beyond belief, but 100% hostile. We believe we are significant while actually being irrelevant, except for how we treat one another. We die with only what we entered this world with. We experience feelings that define us, yet they are mainly out of our control.

So I think our individual window of life is to answer this question of love, which impinges on Jesus. If we have an open heart, willing to listen He speaks. If not, we will bloom like a flower then perish and die. This is like the spiritual divide of existance, and each is given an opportunity to taste and see, but only a few will manage to find their way. And what else has real value? To touch others, and bring them life or to dwell alone on one own passions, while others suffer and are hurt as a result.

I have seen so many strive, sacrifice everything for worldly goods and status, to see it rip them apart, destroy who they are and often when gained through violence, end in a gruesome death, often preceded by terror and suffering. So I think things are not as they appear, and the question we need to answer is more within ourselves that the surrounding environment suggests. God bless you.

 

[USincognito]

Funny thing is I got this wrong, it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics stating entropy in the universe is always increasing, or order does not arise out of chaos, rather chaos arises out of order. For evolution to be true, a disordered universe has to become more disordered while creating greater order and complexity out of simpler parts on such a minor scale that this actually increases entropy or else it will not happen.

It is why we cannot create a never ending machine, because it will run out of fuel.
I have always wondered why such a basic principle that goes against evolution is just ignored though you can measure it by just lighting a fire.

I made a meme for precisely this argument.

 

[USincognito]

Now we have had the theory of evolution and its projection for over 100 years, with all the modern understanding of life, biological systems, and still there is not a good actual model of how it worked.

Could you clarify what this means? What does "its projection for over 100 years" mean? And what do you mean by "there is not a good actual model of how it worked"?

 

[USincognito]

Which is stereotyping and is an example of dogmatism from certain Christians on this website. Just because people can reach the same conclusion on a topic does not mean they are all a part of a hive-mind.

Yeah. It's like when five of us all give the same answer to a question or the same explanation for for an issue that means we're a Borg-like collective. Why is it so hard for some to realize that multiple people can hold the same position or come to the same conclusion?

 

[LightLoveHope]

Could you clarify what this means? What does "its projection for over 100 years" mean? And what do you mean by "there is not a good actual model of how it worked"?

Evolution is a theory that random events combined with environmental pressure that eliminates unsuccessful options, and leaves only the successful ones.

Now trying variations of this model to go from chemicals to a working living creature is projecting the idea, and trying to develop working models. With zero working models, it suggests the idea is wrong.

 

[LightLoveHope]

I made a meme for precisely this argument. View attachment 243731

This is an interesting idea. A hurrican is in this proposal creating order out of chaos.
But a hurrican is the effect of air from warm water rising too fast, which the atmosphere handles by creating a whirlpool effect. Now the effect of high winds, massive amounts of rain and tidal surges, is creating more chaos when compared to constant wind blowing gently in one direction.

So this analogy falls apart. It is like suggesting hurricans are a creative event, lol. Duhhhh. Who would come up with this analogy? An evolutionist.........??? No they could not get things that wrong.

And to believe in goldilocks events in the development cycle that is agreed is increasing entropy, is actually believing in creative events, created by nature
What I like about his advance, is the acceptance that creative events happen.

 

[USincognito]

Evolution is a theory that random events combined with environmental pressure that eliminates unsuccessful options, and leaves only the successful ones.

That's a bit of a straw man version, but given the rest of your comment it's close enough to work with...

Now trying variations of this model to go from chemicals to a working living creature is projecting the idea, and trying to develop working models. With zero working models, it suggests the idea is wrong.

The origin of life has no effect on evolution and is as different a field of study as geology or astrophysics so I have no idea why you're trying to lump it in with evolution. Evolution is what happens to living things when the reproduce and imperfectly pass on genetic material to offspring. Period. How life on earth got started is not addressed by and certainly isn't incorporated into evolution.

That said, to suggest that there are zero working models from organic chemistry for an abiogenetic origin of life on earth is simply false.

 

[Astrophile]

There is a simple reality of design. Go to an art museum, or see a printed book with printed pictures in it. So say it randomly existed would be insane.
It is obviously the work of a creative mind ie man.

So if a god appeared to you, would you say that it was too complex to have come into existence by natural processes, and that therefore its formation was obviously the work of a creative mind, that is an earlier god?

 

[USincognito]

This is an interesting idea. A hurrican is in this proposal creating order out of chaos.{snip}

No. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with order and choas. That is a misconception a lot of people have, especially Creationists. They also seem to think that entropy means choas or disorder and it doesn't. Entropy is simply a measure of the amount of heat available for work in a closed system. Since the earth is not a closed system and receives heat from the sun 2LoT doesn't apply to it and systems on it the way Creationists think 2LoT applies to everything.

So this analogy falls apart. It is like suggesting hurricans are a creative event, lol. Duhhhh. Who would come up with this analogy? An evolutionist.........??? No they could not get things that wrong.

Your mockery is quite ironic given that you completely misunderstood the point of the meme and actually demonstrate it's validity. The Creationist understanding (misunderstanding actually) of 2LoT means that weather systems like hurricanes cannot organize as everything must tend towards disorder. Hurricanes are weather systems that organize spontaneously due to the heat input of the sun to the earth. That is actually the 2LoT in action, not a violation of it.

And to believe in goldilocks events in the development cycle that is agreed is increasing entropy, is actually believing in creative events, created by nature
What I like about his advance, is the acceptance that creative events happen.

I have no idea what any of this means or has to do with the point I made about Creationists and the 2LoT.

 

[Strathos]

Which is stereotyping and is an example of dogmatism from certain Christians on this website. Just because people can reach the same conclusion on a topic does not mean they are all a part of a hive-mind.

Take away your usernames, avatars, and all other identification data and no one could tell your posts apart. The same is not true for Christians here who agree on things - I can always spot their distinct posting styles.

 

[Tinker Grey]

All you people look alike.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I believe there will always be till I die, a plausibility view of either a faith position in a creative God, or a possible system origin. I suspect the real issue is about how we choose to relate to love and our relationship to others.

Is existance an obvious inversion? We live on a planet, with 40 miles of air above us, with life pouring out of this garden, but everywhere else barren, empty, vast beyond belief, but 100% hostile. We believe we are significant while actually being irrelevant, except for how we treat one another. We die with only what we entered this world with. We experience feelings that define us, yet they are mainly out of our control.

So I think our individual window of life is to answer this question of love, which impinges on Jesus. If we have an open heart, willing to listen He speaks. If not, we will bloom like a flower then perish and die. This is like the spiritual divide of existance, and each is given an opportunity to taste and see, but only a few will manage to find their way. And what else has real value? To touch others, and bring them life or to dwell alone on one own passions, while others suffer and are hurt as a result.

I have seen so many strive, sacrifice everything for worldly goods and status, to see it rip them apart, destroy who they are and often when gained through violence, end in a gruesome death, often preceded by terror and suffering. So I think things are not as they appear, and the question we need to answer is more within ourselves that the surrounding environment suggests. God bless you.

I agree with most of that, although I think we'll do more justice to our own efforts if we drop the belief in supernatural fictions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Could you clarify what this means? What does "its projection for over 100 years" mean? And what do you mean by "there is not a good actual model of how it worked"?

I gambled and took it to refer to the previous line about abiogenesis, meaning we've understood evolution for 100 years but still not abiogenesis. It's the only way I could make sense of it

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is an interesting idea. A hurrican is in this proposal creating order out of chaos.
But a hurrican is the effect of air from warm water rising too fast, which the atmosphere handles by creating a whirlpool effect. Now the effect of high winds, massive amounts of rain and tidal surges, is creating more chaos when compared to constant wind blowing gently in one direction.

So this analogy falls apart. It is like suggesting hurricans are a creative event, lol. Duhhhh. Who would come up with this analogy? An evolutionist.........??? No they could not get things that wrong.

And to believe in goldilocks events in the development cycle that is agreed is increasing entropy, is actually believing in creative events, created by nature
What I like about his advance, is the acceptance that creative events happen.

You misunderstand the example - a hurricane may create plenty of disorder and chaos, but it is itself an ordered system. The chaos that it creates shows how there must be a greater increase in overall entropy (crudely, disorder) in order to produce local pockets of low entropy (ordered systems).

Also, I'm not sure you're using 'goldilocks events' in the right context - 'goldilocks' usually refers to something between two extremes. Can you explain what you mean by a 'goldilocks event' - or, better still, provide a reference?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Take away your usernames, avatars, and all other identification data and no one could tell your posts apart. The same is not true for Christians here who agree on things - I can always spot their distinct posting styles.

This sounds like a classic example of in-group vs out-group familiarity, but it says more about your discriminatory abilities than it does about the non-Christians here.