Extrapolated proof that 2Lod levitates boulders

[npetreley]

http://www.trueorigin.org/thermotable2.asp

And from the article that pointed to the above table... ( http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp )

“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.”
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

 

[chickenman]

the table is ridiculous, if microevolution is thermodynamically viable then macroevolution is too, because they both occur via the same mechanism, using the same enzymes and using the same nucleotides.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
the table is ridiculous, if microevolution is thermodynamically viable then macroevolution is too, because they both occur via the same mechanism, using the same enzymes and using the same nucleotides.

You obviously didn't read the article.

 

[choccy]

I read the article and I can safely say that it is ridiculous as well. And in what way is the article supposed to refute what chickenman said?

 

Choccy

 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Choccy, chickenman -

Don't dismiss this table so flippantly. I think it clearly forces the scientists to shoulder the burden of proof. After all, evolution and levitating boulders are a thermodynamically similar system. It would be ridiculous for us to not give strong evidence that disproves the creationist's contention that evolution violates the 2LoT. It certainly isn't on the creationist to validate his claim. Next, you will be asking them to show thermodynamic proof that boulders can't levitate!

Quit being so cynical.

Dang.

 

[chickenman]

well all i'm saying is that we don't need to show that macroevolution is thermodynamically viable

microevolution obviously is because it happens, and macroevolution involves exactly the same chemical mechanism

 

[Jerry Smith]

Chickenman! Listen to yourself. If evolution is true that means boulders can float! There's a table!

 

[chickenman]

okay, i've read the article and not just the table.
I can't argue with their claims that 2LoT presents problems for abiogenesis, but it doesn't present any problems for macroevolution, unless you can show me the precise chemical step in macroevolution which violates the 2LoT then you can't go on claiming that macroevolution violates the 2LoT

 

[Lacmeh]

Organic Monomers resist at all at any temperature.
Hm then the enzyme synthesis done every second by the human body is impossible.
Therefore the human body cannot exist.
Therefore there are no human bodies, no plants, no animasl, all that is a lie and exists only, hm well I guess I need to figure that one out

 

[Lacmeh]

BTW, it is true, that a spontaneous levitating boulder is not challenged by the second law of thermodynamics, but surely is by the gravity.
It is funny, how they blot out every physic law but the second law of thermodynamics.
In biblical analogy, let´s blot out 9 out of the ten commandmends, since only the thou shalt not kill(murder) is the only one that matters, really.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by choccy
I read the article and I can safely say that it is ridiculous as well. And in what way is the article supposed to refute what chickenman said?

How about all the stuff between the beginning and the end? Or the simple fact that microevolution is not an increase in complexity or organization, but for macroevolution to occur requires it.

Or quotes like these...

“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that ... biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

You are dreaming if you think you can just wave this problem away by saying "the processes are the same in micro and macro." Not even people from your own camp agree with you.

 

[chickenman]

until you can show me which chemical step in macroevolution violates the 2LoT, you cannot claim that macroevolution violates 2LoT. All you can do is try to apply information theory to a law which says absolutely nothing about information systems, it only applies to chemical systems. There is no 2nd law of information dynamics.

keep saying until your face turns blue npeterly, until you show which step in macroevolution violates 2LoT your claim is baseless.

 

[chickenman]

BTW your second quote clearly refers to abiogenesis, not macroevolution

 

[Jerry Smith]

chickenman,

I am going to repeat your point here, in case it was missed by someone.

Microevolution is allowed by thermodynamics. Macroevolution employs the same biological processes, and the same chemical and physical processes as microevolution. Therefore, macroevolution is allowed by thermodynamics.

I hadn't ever thought of actually making this point explicit, being as how those who claim that macroevolution is a thermodynamic impossibilty haven't ever bothered to demonstrate that they are correct on this point. I used to think that it was better not to respond at all until they presented an actual argument - and then only to show that the argument fails. But I do see that it can be good to offer a positive argument in return, when it is succinctly stated as yours is.

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way.. I tried to read the article, but when I clicked the link all I found was an introduction, a long series of quotes, and a conclusion. If I had wanted to know what all of those other people wanted to say about the subject, I would have read their books and papers. This author apparently had nothing at all to say in defense of his table, just quotes that he hopes we will understand to mean that he is right.

In fairness, I browsed through some of the feedback meaning to come back and verify my first glance analysis, but by that time the web-site had seemingly gone down. I will check again later.