Teach me why I should believe in evolution.

[Sojourner<><]

First problem. The 2nd Law is a statistical observation. Over time, heat will move from a warmer object to a colder object. However, if we look at a small local area over a short period of time, the 2nd Law can be violated (this is how we get reverse reactions in chemistry). Over time, however, it will reach equilibrium.

Next, what do you mean by axiom? Axioms are accepted truths without question. There are no axioms in science because we can't prove anything in science. Take the Law of Gravity, for example. The Law is actually wrong under certain conditions. It seems like you're misusing axiom.



The reason is because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refers to the available amount of energy to do work. It's a mathematical formula. Like other people said, where is your mathematical work? You can't expect to use words as a substitute in a mathematical law. It'd be the equivalent of saying, flying violates the Law of Gravity since forces attract. This isn't true and it would be easy to see by showing a force diagram.

Show us you understand the 2nd Law by showing us the mathematics that disprove evolution. The reason why no Creationist ever does this is because they can't. Either they don't understand the second law and use layman words like complexity, or they know that evolution isn't disproven by the 2nd Law any more than seeds->trees. Finally, if you can't show the math, explain why a seed growing into a tree doesn't violate the 2nd Law, but a mutation in a gene that is later selected in the environment does violate the 2nd Law.

I think the problem is you need to forget all the science you learned from Creationist sources or else you'll never accept evolution since your science knowledge will be tainted.

Sir if I had the capability to disprove the theory of evolution do you think I would be wasting my time here? I'm simply asking a question and I am under no more obligation to prove anything than you are. Furthermore, if you're so enlightened then why are you so much more focused on pointing out my status as a layman (which I am) than answering that question?

 

[Atha]

evelution doesnt work cause if it was just dust and water, that moved around in a circle, there would need to be the greatest of combinings that through atomic bonding is not possible without a force in the right direction... not even a comet would work cause that force is too great, and not well enough on all sides... for as you know about life we have boundrys and complexity of all directions...

 

[notto]

Furthermore, if you're so enlightened then why are you so much more focused on pointing out my status as a layman (which I am) than answering that question?

Because you seem to be ignoring the answers and just keep repeating the question. The problem is that your question doesn't make sense to people who understand the 2nd law and physics. We have directly observed all of the mechansisms involved in the theory of evolution. Which one of them violates the 2nd law? You haven't been able to provide an answer to that and my guess is whatever your source of information is can't either. That should tell you something. Whatever it is you are talking about isn't the 2nd law.

 

[random_guy]

Sir if I had the capability to disprove the theory of evolution do you think I would be wasting my time here? I'm simply asking a question and I am under no more obligation to prove anything than you are. Furthermore, if you're so enlightened then why are you so much more focused on pointing out my status as a layman (which I am) than answering that question?

I didn't mean anything bad by laymen. I'm sorry if I offended you. I was merely pointing out that if you want to sufficiently attack evolution, you need to first lose misconceptions you have about evolution and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We're just going around in circles because you continue to insist that you can apply the 2nd LoTD to evolution, and we keep pointing out that you can't. We've given references for you and you haven't addressed any of the references. If this continues, it will end up like every other thread where Creationists ask for information, only to refuse to accept it. I have answered your question many times, and my answer has always been the same, evolution doesn't violate the 2nd LoTD. Again, show me why a mutation in a gene that is selected for violates the 2nd LoTD.

If you want to learn about evolution, forget everything you know about the 2nd LoTD because your understand seems to be incorrect, and evolution does not violate it.

 

[random_guy]

evelution doesnt work cause if it was just dust and water, that moved around in a circle, there would need to be the greatest of combinings that through atomic bonding is not possible without a force in the right direction... not even a comet would work cause that force is too great, and not well enough on all sides... for as you know about life we have boundrys and complexity of all directions...

http://timecube.com/

 

[Sojourner<><]

The word "should" in the OP is problematic.

should is a moral imperative, an ethical ought to be.
why would understanding a particular scientific theory be a moral imperative?
can it even try to be an ethical ought to be?

you can study and understand the theory if you desire, the theory doesn't come with a label "required belief for being human" or "necessary to understand". you can be, and apparently most human beings on earth are, relatively unaware of the science behind the theory.

so what? you don't have to know anything under your hood to drive your car. nor to you have to understand anything about your body in order to live with it.

i really don't like that "should", the more i see it, the less i think it is appropriate. i don't really care whether you or anyone else studies the theory, gets it, understands it or whatever. i make no moral demands on you, nor does the theory, it just kind of sits there, pretty much the same thing i do.

If one understands the theory he should be able to communicate that understanding. But if not, what is it he has put his trust in if he believes it?

 

[shernren]

Alright, sojourner, let's take it from the ground up. Can I ask you something so that I can see what your understanding is:

What is entropy? Give all the separate definitions you know (thermodynamics, statistics, etc.).

It's okay for you to give a non-scientific definition but you should be aware that scientific theories only describe quantities which are scientifically defined. If I can see what exactly comes into your mind when I say "Evolution does not cause a decrease in entropy", then I can figure out why you're not understanding us.

 

[Rin4Christ]

If one understands the theory he should be able to communicate that understanding. But if not, what is it he has put his trust in if he believes it?

Sometimes to understand the intricacies of a theory you have to have some understanding of the science it is build on. I work in research, and I can give you a very basic explanation of what I do. (I study binding of 2 virus proteins to see how proteins from different strains interact- this will tell us something more about how new virus strains arise.) If you are confused by that, then I have to start defining new words and concepts for you (reassortment, the math behind binding strength, why these proteins are important in the virus life cycle, etc) and you have to get a deeper understanding of the science.

Many of us have tried to explain to you why the 2nd law is not violated. You still seem to be unable to understand or accept what we are saying because your understanding of the science is limited or incorrect. That is OK, not everyone needs to understand the physics behind thermodynamics. I only have the basic concept because I am a biologist not a physicist. But if your understanding only goes to a certain level, you cannot expect science to be able to explain all the finer points at your level. Unless you want to delve deeper into the science, at some point you will just have to take our word for it. shernren has the right idea- figure out exactly what your level of understanding is and then explaining as much as possible at your level.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Does information theory apply to evolution? Not only that, how does the 2nd Law apply to information theory? I guarentee it's a different form.

Edwin Thompson Jaynes (July 5, 1922 &#8211; April 30, 1998) was Wayman Crow Distinguished Professor of Physics at Washington University in St. Louis. He wrote extensively on statistical mechanics and on foundations of probability and statistical inference, initiating in 1957 the MaxEnt interpretation of thermodynamics, as being a particular application of more general Bayesian/information theory techniques

It also raises interesting and valid questions if it is applied to genetic information.

You said earlier that you're a layman when it comes to science. Isn't it raise flags that all the people that have studied some science are pointing out that you're making the same mistakes in your post?

Sure if they were all consistent. So far I've had one that has told me that the law doesn't apply because it only applies to heat, another said it doesn't apply because it only applies to only closed systems, yet another who says that evolution works within the law and even one who says that the law can be violated.

Why haven't you given an answer to why seeds growing into trees not violating the 2nd Law?

Because I haven't stated that it doesn't.

How does a mutation in a gene that is selected for violating the 2nd Law?

I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

Start here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
This gives a good overview on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

EDIT: This will be helpful for you, also. Read this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organisation#Self-organization_vs._entropy

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sometimes to understand the intricacies of a theory you have to have some understanding of the science it is build on. I work in research, and I can give you a very basic explanation of what I do. (I study binding of 2 virus proteins to see how proteins from different strains interact- this will tell us something more about how new virus strains arise.) If you are confused by that, then I have to start defining new words and concepts for you (reassortment, the math behind binding strength, why these proteins are important in the virus life cycle, etc) and you have to get a deeper understanding of the science.

How is this relevant?

Many of us have tried to explain to you why the 2nd law is not violated. You still seem to be unable to understand or accept what we are saying because your understanding of the science is limited or incorrect.

Which explanation was I supposed to accept? They're all different.

That is OK, not everyone needs to understand the physics behind thermodynamics. I only have the basic concept because I am a biologist not a physicist. But if your understanding only goes to a certain level, you cannot expect science to be able to explain all the finer points at your level. Unless you want to delve deeper into the science, at some point you will just have to take our word for it. shernren has the right idea- figure out exactly what your level of understanding is and then explaining as much as possible at your level.

I wish that were true. However, my lack of understanding would be more apparent if the answers I've received were more consistent. At least I would know where to look to learn about the topic. Up to this point it seems that all I have received is sophisticated confusion.

If your understanding of it is basic then perhaps you can discuss the topic without referring to endless sources of information. Plus you're a biologist... Do you think that the law as it pertains to the transmission of entropy between two bodies is much like the process of osmosis? Why or why not?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Alright, sojourner, let's take it from the ground up. Can I ask you something so that I can see what your understanding is:

What is entropy? Give all the separate definitions you know (thermodynamics, statistics, etc.).

It's okay for you to give a non-scientific definition but you should be aware that scientific theories only describe quantities which are scientifically defined. If I can see what exactly comes into your mind when I say "Evolution does not cause a decrease in entropy", then I can figure out why you're not understanding us.

It's not that I'm not understanding anybody, it's that I'm not receiving the same answer. Which one am I supposed to start with?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Call me a sandwich short of a picknick but I'm getting the impression that I'm being told that I'm not qualified enough to ask a question.

 

[gluadys]

My understanding of the 2nd law pertains to information theory. It's easy to understand how information is guaranteed to decay over time when running computer programs. My question is about how evolution is able to overcome this.

There are significant differences between DNA "language" and human languages that mean information as applied to computers doesn't work with DNA.

I'm no expert, but even some experts said I did very well on this summary of information theory.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=13748361#post13748361

 

[Smidlee]

Sojourner
Here's an interesting quote by Charles Seife (an evolutionist) in his book "Decoding the Universe" which hit the nail on the head.

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&#8217;s attempts to dissipate and destroy it. Information theory is revealing the answer to the age-old question, What is life? That answer is quite disturbing.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies not only to energy but information itself including DNA . To an evolutionist this is very disturbing indeed.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Sojourner
Here's an interesting quote by Charles Seife (an evolutionist) in his book "Decoding the Universe" which hit the nail on the head. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies not only to energy but information itself including DNA . To an evolutionist this is very disturbing indeed.

entropy applies to the MEDIUM of information, not to the information itself.

why should these be a problem?

it takes a constant flow of high grade energy through an organism to maintain the integrity of DNA as well as the rest of that creature. when energy flows cease, so does that organism and something else consumes it's body for it's own high grade energy streams. and life goes on.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Doesn't TofE purport that life on Earth has grown more complex over time?

If that is so then doesn't that mean that the open system of life on earth is self organizing since there shouldn't be an exterior source of complexity? (In other words, that which increases the complexity of life is a source within itself)

If I were to design a simple computer program with the instructions to make copies of itself across different computers on the internet (as in a coputer virus), the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to information theory suggests that given enough time, the information in the program should decay to a point where it is no longer functional and it could no longer replicate. However, over this time period my computer program would not grow in complexity because it is not self organizing. And even if it did, more complexity would mean more instability and a greater likelihood of breakdown. If I were to somehow upgrade the program to give it the ability to increase the complexity of its children, the means by which it is able to do so must surely be even more complex than its original design, and this should amount to even more instability and a greater rate of decay!

Are the instructions for the process by which DNA is made more complex encoded within DNA itself? And if they are then why are they seemingly unaffected by decay? If this particular set of instructions were to decay to the point where DNA could no longer be made more complex, it would not mean that change among species could no longer take place. It would simply mean that their level of complexity should either decrease or be maintained.

Gluadys stated that evolution works within the second law of thermodynamics. If TofE is correct, I would have to say her statement must be true. But how?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sojourner
Here's an interesting quote by Charles Seife (an evolutionist) in his book "Decoding the Universe" which hit the nail on the head. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies not only to energy but information itself including DNA . To an evolutionist this is very disturbing indeed.

Thankyou, very much

 

[Sojourner<><]

Not so

simply observe the sequences of letters within a sentence. It's in a state of order, and if it weren't, it wouldn't be coherent. Entropy can exist within the medium and the information itself.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If I were to design a simple computer program with the instructions to make copies of itself across different computers on the internet (as in a coputer virus), the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to information theory suggests that given enough time, the information in the program should decay to a point where it is no longer functional and it could no longer replicate.


no. the information is digital. every copy is the exactly the same, there is no application of entropy to the information itself. You can copy it forever without any degradation of the information. for each copy is made onto a new media, at that time it is an exact copy of the original (if the systems are working right). you appear to be confusing noise and noisey transmission with entropy.

What degrades over time, what is responsive to entropy is the machines, the media, whether discs or memory. Electric charge disspates over time hence the need to refresh computer memory. This is the input of energy to maintain the media.

As long as the machines are maintain by a constant flow of energy and matter through their system you can copy your program to your heart's content, and your children's and grandchildren. but both your genetic line and the computer systems require matter (you eat, they need new hard drives) and energy (you eat and they are plugged into the grid) to maintain themselves in the face of 2LoT.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Not so

simply observe the sequences of letters within a sentence. It's in a state of order, and if it weren't, it wouldn't be coherent. Entropy can exist within the medium and the information itself.

you will have to explain and expand. i simply can not successful parse this.


trying:

ok. here is my test sequence of letters.


simply observe the sequences of letters within a sentence

well first i need a sentence...so.

Simply observe the sequences of letters within a sentence.

what is: "in a state of order"? the electronics that stores on the hard drive in my machine, the ascii code, the programs that render my screen, the letters as i see them on the screen? exactly what is ordered? how do i measure it at each different stage? what is the orderliness of a sentence? the fact that to a reader of English these letters mean something? what does it mean to mean something?

i'm not sure what you mean by "simply" for it doesn't appear to be a simple process in any way.

wouldn't be coherent.---what definition of coherent are you using? do you mean that the sentence "holds together"? that it has meaning? that it is required to be in exactly this form in other to transmit the meaning it does? that can't be it since i can leave out lots of letters and still be able to read it. i can use a thesaurs and replace all the words with synonyms and still be able to read it and get the same or very similiar meaning.


and furthermore i see nothing in the example that changes my understanding of how entropy effects physical media and not information.


so you really will have to expand a bit if i'm going to make sense of this......