Teach me why I should believe in evolution.

[Sojourner<><]

Haha. I think you missed the joke. How does life violate the 2nd Law? By taking in energy by eating food. As long as life is an imperfect replicator and there's selection, then there's evolution. Both are observable. None of replication and selection violate the 2nd Law.

Ok. I see how that can equate to the sustinence of life and changes in variance, but how does that equate to an overall increase in the complexity of life?

 

[pgp_protector]

You must rember the Earth is NOT a closed system.

Energy in being inputed into the Earth all the time.

Energy allows the change.

 

[Sojourner<><]

You must rember the Earth is NOT a closed system.

Energy in being inputed into the Earth all the time.

Energy allows the change.

But is it energy that causes DNA to grow more complex?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Ok. I see how that can equate to the sustinence of life and changes in variance, but how does that equate to an overall increase in the complexity of life?

i've spent most of the day reading on information entropy. This subtle movement we see in YECism from global-flood to no-speciation to no-new-information to now no-increased-complexity is an odd one. Most YECist are not engineering types or mathematicans, why aim at such a difficult field as complexity? or for that matter at information theory? i think what is happening is that the geological record is conclusive enough that the leading edge of YECism can't even get it's foot in the door with anyone the slightest bit education in that field.

So then they looked at biology, and now the evidence for speciation is so strong that it is a no sell as well. That is why we see this inflation in the definition of kinds over the years from species to family (with Canid at least).

The current push of not new information or even no more complexity appears to be tied in as well to how to convince people who do not understand the details. If people have no idea of retrovirus or gene duplication, of course the argument that evolution can't add information is overwhelming and conclusive.


enough diatribe. back to the issue.

why this accent on complexity?

it is a difficult topic, presupposes competence in areas that are younger than biology or geology. Besides evolution is not directional. Parasites are the beautiful example of this. i've seen people claim that there are 4 species of parasites for every free living one. parasites often mutate from free living counterparts by losing functions through mutations. so what? this is what the exploration of genomic space looks like.

o'well back to reading on H().

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But is it energy that causes DNA to grow more complex?

life exists by coupling an energy degradation reaction with another reaction that puts things together.

our primary energy source is ATP formed by the mitochrondria by a coupled ATPase and proton pump, a very good example of these coupled reactions.

if the energy degradation reaction is A-->B and the coupled reaction that creates is C-->D, where thermodynamics and entropy enter in the picture is that the loss in the reaction A-->b is greater than the gain in C-->D thus driving both reactions. this is not in spite of 2Lot but BECAUSE of it.

That energy or molecules created from C-->D are used to drive other reactions that create, read, duplicate, repair etc the genetic system, including DNA. Each step requires an energy loss in just this manner, coupled reactions.

so to make a longish story shorter.


evolution is driven just like life is:
by eating
and not to leave out the plants,(like last time) it is also driven by and this is the primary pump, sitting out in the sunlight.

of course the S02 creatures living around the deep sea smokers use coupled reactions as well, gaining their energy from the bonds in SO2 and eating each other....*grin*

 

[Sojourner<><]

i've spent most of the day reading on information entropy. This subtle movement we see in YECism from global-flood to no-speciation to no-new-information to now no-increased-complexity is an odd one. Most YECist are not engineering types or mathematicans, why aim at such a difficult field as complexity? or for that matter at information theory? i think what is happening is that the geological record is conclusive enough that the leading edge of YECism can't even get it's foot in the door with anyone the slightest bit education in that field.

So then they looked at biology, and now the evidence for speciation is so strong that it is a no sell as well. That is why we see this inflation in the definition of kinds over the years from species to family (with Canid at least).

The current push of not new information or even no more complexity appears to be tied in as well to how to convince people who do not understand the details. If people have no idea of retrovirus or gene duplication, of course the argument that evolution can't add information is overwhelming and conclusive.


enough diatribe. back to the issue.

why this accent on complexity?

it is a difficult topic, presupposes competence in areas that are younger than biology or geology. Besides evolution is not directional. Parasites are the beautiful example of this. i've seen people claim that there are 4 species of parasites for every free living one. parasites often mutate from free living counterparts by losing functions through mutations. so what? this is what the exploration of genomic space looks like.

o'well back to reading on H().

IMO, it is because evolution is information-dependant. We're just becoming more aware of this so there's alot of questions to be asked.

 

[notto]

Ok. I see how that can equate to the sustinence of life and changes in variance, but how does that equate to an overall increase in the complexity of life?

What overall increase in the complexity of life? Can you show us an example of this complexity change and how it was measured?

That is the problem with this argument. Until you can tell us how it is measured, to suggest it is there is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

What you are not asking is 'Is there an overll increase in the complexity of life'? You need to answer that question first in an objective and concrete way that has something we can truly measure.

 

[notto]

IMO, it is because evolution is information-dependant. We're just becoming more aware of this so there's alot of questions to be asked.

I think the first one that comes to mind is what recent research makes you think that we are becoming more aware that evolution is 'information-dependent'?

Can you define 'information-dependent' for us and show us how our awareness that evolution is 'information-dependent' has been increased and by what research?

 

[Sojourner<><]

What overall increase in the complexity of life? Can you show us an example of this complexity change and how it was measured?

That is the problem with this argument. Until you can tell us how it is measured, to suggest it is there is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

What you are not asking is 'Is there an overll increase in the complexity of life'? You need to answer that question first in an objective and concrete way that has something we can truly measure.

But I'm not arguing anything. Nor am I suggesting that there was an actual change in complexity. My question simply presupposes that those who support evolution also support the assumption (or otherwise) that it is responsible for a widescale increase in overal complexity of life over time. I don't understand why this is so difficult, it was what I was taught in public school and now I want to know how evolution could be responsible for this if it is true.

There have been some answers made to this question so I'm going to go study those instead of defending my question any further. If you don't like it don't answer it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I think the first one that comes to mind is what recent research makes you think that we are becoming more aware that evolution is 'information-dependent'?

Can you define 'information-dependent' for us and show us how our awareness that evolution is 'information-dependent' has been increased and by what research?

Why?

 

[notto]

Why?

If you can't define the terms of your statement or provide any support for the change you are suggesting then your statement is meaningless.

IMO, it is because evolution is freething-deficient. We're just becoming more aware of this so there's alot of questions to be asked.

 

[Sojourner<><]

If you can't define the terms of your statement or provide any support for the change you are suggesting then your statement is meaningless.

IMO, it is because evolution is freething-deficient. We're just becoming more aware of this so there's alot of questions to be asked.

You know, I think the majority of my opinions probably are meaningless. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[shernren]

You know, I think the majority of my opinions probably are meaningless. Thanks for pointing that out.

That would happen if you do not know enough about evolution.

Imagine if one day a Muslim pulls up a barstool in Apologetics and says "The Christian God is cruel. He sends people to hell just for kicks."

Of course you would protest. "Where on earth did you get that idea?"

"That is what predestination teaches, right?"

Obviously he has got it all wrong, most predestination does not look anything like that at all. But because of that, if he goes on to say "predestination tells me that nobody has any free will", or "predestination tells me that aeroplanes should not be able to take off at all", would you pay any attention to what he is saying? No. His opinions on predestination are useless, because he does not know what he is talking about.

In the same way, until you know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is, your opinions on it do not really help. This is not a statement of insult; this is a statement of bare fact. Of course, having 4 or 5 people simultaneously trying to shove what it is down your throat probably helps very little but you have to step away from this mentality that "I am a creationist they are all out to screw me hence they are not listening to whatever I have to say!" in the same way that the Muslim in my example might very well think we have a problem against Muslims simply because he has some doctrine wrong.

So, if you want to listen, do listen. If any of the explanations are too tough, back up and let us know and we will try again. But the conspiracy-martyr mentality is not going to get any of us anywhere.

 

[random_guy]

The problem is no Creationist (or scientist) has ever given metric for measuring complexity when it comes to disproving evolution. How can you say something is more or less complex when you can't measure it?

For example, if you restore a pseudogene in a animal by splicing out an early stop codon, is this an increase or decrease in complexity? You're removing DNA but you're gaining a new protein? In plants, they can double their chromosome count allowing them a new source of genetic material to mutate while keeping their old DNA. Does this process somehow violate the 2nd Law? Is rice more complex than humans since rice has almost twice the amount of genes as humans? Are aadvarks more complex than humans since they have 70% more DNA than us? If you can't answer these questions, then it's a big red flag that using your definition of complexity to attack evolution is wrong.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That would happen if you do not know enough about evolution.

Imagine if one day a Muslim pulls up a barstool in Apologetics and says "The Christian God is cruel. He sends people to hell just for kicks."

Of course you would protest. "Where on earth did you get that idea?"

"That is what predestination teaches, right?"

Obviously he has got it all wrong, most predestination does not look anything like that at all. But because of that, if he goes on to say "predestination tells me that nobody has any free will", or "predestination tells me that aeroplanes should not be able to take off at all", would you pay any attention to what he is saying? No. His opinions on predestination are useless, because he does not know what he is talking about.

In the same way, until you know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is, your opinions on it do not really help. This is not a statement of insult; this is a statement of bare fact. Of course, having 4 or 5 people simultaneously trying to shove what it is down your throat probably helps very little but you have to step away from this mentality that "I am a creationist they are all out to screw me hence they are not listening to whatever I have to say!" in the same way that the Muslim in my example might very well think we have a problem against Muslims simply because he has some doctrine wrong.

So, if you want to listen, do listen. If any of the explanations are too tough, back up and let us know and we will try again. But the conspiracy-martyr mentality is not going to get any of us anywhere.

Up until this point, the only two people who have tried to answer my question directly is rmwilliamsII and maybe Gluadys. The rest of you have tried to avoid it.

If you would like to prove me wrong would you take a shot at it?

 

[notto]

Up until this point, the only two people who have tried to answer my question directly is rmwilliamsII and maybe Gluadys. The rest of you have tried to avoid it.

If you would like to prove me wrong would you take a shot at it?

I've explained to you several times why the 2nd law argument is not a valid one. I've answered all the questions you put forward but perhaps you did not get the answers you wanted. You claimed to be objective. If that was true, you would realize that the argument of the 2nd law is not a valid argument against evolution and would move on. You have been provided with all the materials and information you need to understand evolution and to understand why much of what you have learned about it in the past is probably incorrect. Many of us have been trying to show you that you are asking questions that make no sense. The way this is done is to ask you specific questions about where you are getting your information and to ask questions that if left unanswers show that your questions don't really make sense.

What specific question do you have that you do not think has been addressed?

 

[Sojourner<><]

I've explained to you several times why the 2nd law argument is not a valid one. I've answered all the questions you put forward but perhaps you did not get the answers you wanted. You claimed to be objective. If that was true, you would realize that the argument of the 2nd law is not a valid argument against evolution and would move on. You have been provided with all the materials and information you need to understand evolution and to understand why much of what you have learned about it in the past is probably incorrect. Many of us have been trying to show you that you are asking questions that make no sense. The way this is done is to ask you specific questions about where you are getting your information and to ask questions that if left unanswers show that your questions don't really make sense.

What specific question do you have that you do not think has been addressed?

ok fine... as it is there's only a small handful of you so I'll repost my line of questioning yet again so we can be straight about it.

Does 2Lot affect the entropy within physical systems? In other words, does it affect my computer?

 

[notto]

ok fine... as it is there's only a small handful of you so I'll repost my line of questioning yet again so we can be straight about it.

Does 2Lot affect the entropy within physical systems? In other words, does it affect my computer?

Yes, the physical mechanisms your computer relies upon act under the 2nd law. Just like any machine or appliance that uses electricity or does work while creating heat.

Don't confuse the machine and the physical mechanisms that drive it with the logical storage of data. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not directly impact the data on your computer. Errors might manifest themelves, but that is only the result of physical mechanisms, not any 'law' that dictates the data itself must degrade.

Remember, the 2nd law deals with physical mechansims like mechanics, chemical reaction, atomic activity, and electrical induction. This is why that if someone claims that something violates the 2nd law, they must name a mechanisms that does so and show mathematically with proper units why it does so. The 2nd law is not a philosophy, it is a relationship between physical mechanisms related to heat, work, and energy.

The identified mechanisms that affect evolution (mutation and natural selection) do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They mainly depend on chemical reactions and natural behavior, all of which has been observed, none of which violate the law.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Yes, the physical mechanisms your computer relies upon act under the 2nd law. Just like any machine or appliance that uses electricity or does work while creating heat.

Don't confuse the machine and the physical mechanisms that drive it with the logical storage of data. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not directly impact the data on your computer. Errors might manifest themelves, but that is only the result of physical mechanisms, not any 'law' that dictates the data itself must degrade.

Remember, the 2nd law deals with physical mechansims like mechanics, chemical reaction, atomic activity, and electrical induction. This is why that if someone claims that something violates the 2nd law, they must name a mechanisms that does so and show mathematically with proper units why it does so. The 2nd law is not a philosophy, it is a relationship between physical mechanisms related to heat, work, and energy.

The identified mechanisms that affect evolution (mutation and natural selection) do not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They mainly depend on chemical reactions and natural behavior, all of which has been observed, none of which violate the law.

Ok. If the entropy within my computer is subject to 2Lot, can that entropy affect the entropy within the information that it processes?

 

[notto]

Ok. If the entropy within my computer is subject to 2Lot, can that entropy affect the entropy within the information that it processes?

Only if the information is dependent on a physical mechanism to store it. The medium is affected because it is physical, not the information itself.

Do you understand that in order to say that something violates the 2nd law that a physical mechanism that violates it must be named and that this violation needs to be shown through mathematics, data, and measurment?