Teach me why I should believe in evolution.

[Sojourner<><]

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?

Is there any such thing as information that does not depend on a physical medium?

Have I stated anywhere that anything violates 2Lot?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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 it does.
in several ways, the first is that your computer will have to be plugged in or using a battery in order to work. if you draw an imaginary circle around your computer and the power system that supplies it, measure the entropy of that system. run your computer, then measure entropy again it will have increased. simply, your computer must take energy to work. it must use a higher level, more organized energy source (and probably hotter as well) and degrade it while doing it's work. and there will be a loss associated with this transformation as well.


the second is that if you put your computer down somewhere, don't feed it power, it will break down over a sufficiently long period of time. the plastic will discolor and get brittle, the steel will rust, natural processes will begin to create more disordered and lower energy states from your computer's physical components.


i'll leave it to the several physicists here to explain it more accurately, this is just a laymen's view of entropy not a scientific one.

 

[notto]

Is there any such thing as information that does not depend on a physical medium?

Information itself doesn't depend on a physical medium - information is not a physical thing - it is a concept - concepts can't violate a physical law. Storage of information and transmission of information depends on a physical medium.

Have I stated anywhere that anything violates 2Lot?

You seem to be hinted at it, regardless,

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?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Information itself doesn't depend on a physical medium - information is not a physical thing - it is a concept - concepts can't violate a physical law. Storage of information and transmission of information depends on a physical medium.
You seem to be hinted at it, regardless,

If a man has a concept, and he develops chronic dimentia or some similar disease that affects his memory and cognition, what is likely to happen to that concept?

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?

No, because it is my God given right, purchased by blood, to say what ever I darned well please (so long as I don't blaspheme Him, of course). However, in order to prove somethingrequires a bit more. Fortunately for me I'm not trying to prove anything, yet.

 

[Mallon]

Jesus died for freedom of speech? I must have missed that verse.

 

[notto]

If a man has a concept, and he develops chronic dimentia or some similar disease that affects his memory and cognition, what is likely to happen to that concept?

It is lost unless he transfers it to another medium. The disease is affectng the medium (brain), not the concept itself.

No, because it is my God given right, purchased by blood, to say what ever I darned well please (so long as I don't blaspheme Him, of course). However, in order to prove somethingrequires a bit more. Fortunately for me I'm not trying to prove anything, yet.

Well that's too bad. If you want to talk about the 2nd law, you should understand it and understand the context of it. That you seem to refuse to accept this basic idea of physics is baffling. It will only lead you further from understanding evolution and the 2nd law.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It is lost unless he transfers it to another medium. The disease is affectng the medium (brain), not the concept itself.

Well that's too bad. If you want to talk about the 2nd law, you should understand it and understand the context of it. That you seem to refuse to accept this basic idea of physics is baffling. It will only lead you further from understanding evolution and the 2nd law.

It can work both ways notto.

Do you understand what information is?

I find the notion that one must be a trained scientist in order to think for himself and to speak about those thoughts to be rather offensive. IMO, a person who holds this view does not value understanding but simply fills his mind with silly factoids until it has grown large enough that he can use it to head-butt others into submission. There is no intelligent dialogue involved in this. It has devolved into a stupid game.

 

[random_guy]

It can work both ways notto.

Do you understand what information is?

I find the notion that one must be a trained scientist in order to think for himself and to speak about those thoughts to be rather offensive. IMO, a person who holds this view does not value understanding but simply fills his mind with silly factoids until it has grown large enough that he can use it to head-butt others into submission. There is no intelligent dialogue involved in this. It has devolved into a stupid game.

According to information theory I learned in Machine Learning, it's the minimum amount of bits required to describe a string. This means that random strings
"awquiobnezsdlkfjjejslkdf" have more information than non-random strings, "Creationism is good". This means that random mutations will increase information.

Now, in genetic engineering, if you apply energy and restriction enzymes, as well as some genes, you can splice genes into plasmids to insert into bacteria. Is this an increase of information? Complexity? If so, why do natural process that use the same material (ATP for energy) violate the 2nd Law?

We've all shown many examples/reasons why evolution doesn't violate the 2nd Law, and why you're understand of the 2nd Law is wrong. Until you're willing to read information from a science book/physics book, this entire discussion on evolution will never progress forward.

 

[notto]

It can work both ways notto.

Do you understand what information is?

Yes.

I find the notion that one must be a trained scientist in order to think for himself and to speak about those thoughts to be rather offensive. IMO, a person who holds this view does not value understanding but simply fills his mind with silly factoids until it has grown large enough that he can use it to head-butt others into submission. There is no intelligent dialogue involved in this. It has devolved into a stupid game.

Laws of physics are not open to personal interpretation. Until you understand the law itself, the mathematics involved, the physical mechansims involved, and the units to express it, trying to apply it is pointless.

Would you like to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how to appy it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Thermodynamics is an exact science that is based on a limited number of specific mathematical concepts. It is not explainable in terms of qualitative metaphors. In order to understand the relationship between probability and the second law, the reader must be familiar with the relationship between probability and entropy. Entropy is a mathematically defined entity which is the fundamental basis of the second law of thermodynamics and all of its engineering and physical chemistry ramifications.

The concept of entropy is fundamental to understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy (or more specifically, increase in entropy) is defined as heat (in calories or Btu's) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system at the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above "absolute zero", the coldest temperature that can exist.

The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.

That is all I've been trying to do is help you understand it.

No game involved. You said you wanted to learn yet you seem to refusing to do so. In that regard, yes, it is a stupid game.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Yes.

Laws of physics are not open to personal interpretation. Until you understand the law itself, the mathematics involved, the physical mechansims involved, and the units to express it, trying to apply it is pointless.

Would you like to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how to appy it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Thermodynamics is an exact science that is based on a limited number of specific mathematical concepts. It is not explainable in terms of qualitative metaphors. In order to understand the relationship between probability and the second law, the reader must be familiar with the relationship between probability and entropy. Entropy is a mathematically defined entity which is the fundamental basis of the second law of thermodynamics and all of its engineering and physical chemistry ramifications.

The concept of entropy is fundamental to understanding the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy (or more specifically, increase in entropy) is defined as heat (in calories or Btu's) absorbed by a system, divided by the absolute temperature of the system at the time the heat is absorbed. Absolute temperature is the number of degrees above "absolute zero", the coldest temperature that can exist.

The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.

That is all I've been trying to do is help you understand it.

No game involved. You said you wanted to learn yet you seem to refusing to do so. In that regard, yes, it is a stupid game.

If you understand what information is then surely you must be able to explain to me how information can exist apart from a physical medium.

As far as 2Lot is concerned, you've already stated that it does affect the entropy within physical systems, and and that this entropy can affect the entropy within the information that those physical systems process. This is sufficient to conclude that if you would like to state that information is not affected by 2Lot, you must explain how it can exist apart from a physical medium.

 

[notto]

If you understand what information is then surely you must be able to explain to me how information can exist apart from a physical medium.

Information is stored in a physical medium. I don't believe I have ever stated otherwise. All i've said is that inforamtion itself is not a physical thing. It is a concept.

As far as 2Lot is concerned, you've already stated that it does affect the entropy within physical systems, and and that this entropy can affect the entropy within the information that those physical systems process. This is sufficient to conclude that if you would like to state that information is not affected by 2Lot, you must explain how it can exist apart from a physical medium.

No, again, the 2nd law can only be applied to the physical. Information is a concept, not a physical thing.

You can certainly show that the medium is affected by the second law but what is lacking in arguing that evolution somehow violates or steps around this is just that - discussion of the physical medium the information is stored in and physical mechansism used to explain evolution- whicyh is the only thing the 2nd law can be applied to.

The 2nd law will not change the information in this sentance unless it affects the physical medium on which it is stored - the information itself is not affected by the 2nd law, otherwise, information would degrade at the same rate no matter the medium. Do you understand why this is important to comprehend? Untill you do, your application of the 2nd law to 'information entrophy' is misguided.

All of the physical mechanisms responsible for the 'information' changes in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

I don't know how many times we can repeat this.

All of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

Do you think that there is some physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that has not been observed?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Information is stored in a physical medium. I don't believe I have ever stated otherwise. All i've said is that inforamtion itself is not a physical thing. It is a concept.


No, again, the 2nd law can only be applied to the physical. Information is a concept, not a physical thing.

You can certainly show that the medium is affected by the second law but what is lacking in arguing that evolution somehow violates or steps around this is just that - discussion of the physical medium the information is stored in and physical mechansism used to explain evolution- whicyh is the only thing the 2nd law can be applied to.

The 2nd law will not change the information in this sentance unless it affects the physical medium on which it is stored - the information itself is not affected by the 2nd law, otherwise, information would degrade at the same rate no matter the medium. Do you understand why this is important to comprehend? Untill you do, your application of the 2nd law to 'information entrophy' is misguided.

All of the physical mechanisms responsible for the 'information' changes in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

I don't know how many times we can repeat this.

All of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

Do you think that there is some physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that has not been observed?

My friend, a concept is contained within information. That information is a pattern - a sequence in the order of the parts of a physical system. A concept would then be a particular pattern of the parts within your mind. And a pattern cannot exist except between physical pieces. Now if thermodynamic entropy pertains to the disorder of physical particles within a system, and information entropy pertains to the order of the bits in information, and those bits ARE the physical particles within a system, then how is it that the second law of thermodynamics does not affect information?

 

[Sojourner<><]

My friend, a concept is contained within information. That information is a pattern - a sequence in the order of the parts of a physical system. A concept would then be a particular pattern of the parts within your mind. And a pattern cannot exist except between physical pieces. Now if thermodynamic entropy pertains to the disorder of physical particles within a system, and information entropy pertains to the order of the bits in information, and those bits ARE the physical particles within a system, then how is it that the second law of thermodynamics does not affect information?

Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like what you're trying to say is that 'meaning' can't be affected by the law since 'meaning' will be the same if you transfer the information between mediums. I am inclined to think that what I mean by 'meaning' would then be a particular pattern sequence.

 

[notto]

My friend, a concept is contained within information. That information is a pattern - a sequence in the order of the parts of a physical system. A concept would then be a particular pattern of the parts within your mind. And a pattern cannot exist except between physical pieces. Now if thermodynamic entropy pertains to the disorder of physical particles within a system, and information entropy pertains to the order of the bits in information, and those bits ARE the physical particles within a system, then how is it that the second law of thermodynamics does not affect information?

It affects the medium the information is stored on. Just like you say here. It does not impact the information (nor 'meaning') as itself because the information itself is not a physical thing. You seem to be confusing 2 types of entropy.

How big is an idea? What physical dimensions does it have? How do I measure how much it degrades due to the second law? What units do I use to express it?

You are trying to imply that somehow the second law impacts the idea or information independent of the medium (or external energy put in to preserve the medium or copy the idea to a new medium). This is not the case.

If it was, information would degrade at the same rate whether stored on paper, gold leaf, or DVD. Is that the case?

If you can't name a unit to use that will apply to thermodynamics and information, that should be your first clue that you are going down the wrong path.

Now, look how far you have strayed from your discussion of evolution. All for a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Because as has already been demosntrated, evolution doesn't violate the second law because all of the mechanisms involved have been directly observed.

You are going down a rabbit hole. Let me know when you would like to return to the subject of evolution in some meaniful way.

All of the physical mechanisms responsible for the 'information' changes in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

I don't know how many times we can repeat this.

All of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

Do you think that there is some physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that has not been observed?

 

[Sojourner<><]

It affects the medium the information is stored on. Just like you say here. It does not impact the information (nor 'meaning') as itself because the information itself is not a physical thing. You seem to be confusing 2 types of entropy.

How big is an idea? What physical dimensions does it have? How do I measure how much it degrades due to the second law? What units do I use to express it?

You are trying to imply that somehow the second law impacts the idea or information independent of the medium (or external energy put in to preserve the medium or copy the idea to a new medium). This is not the case.

If it was, information would degrade at the same rate whether stored on paper, gold leaf, or DVD. Is that the case?

If you can't name a unit to use that will apply to thermodynamics and information, that should be your first clue that you are going down the wrong path.

Now, look how far you have strayed from your discussion of evolution. All for a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Because as has already been demosntrated, evolution doesn't violate the second law because all of the mechanisms involved have been directly observed.

You are going down a rabbit hole. Let me know when you would like to return to the subject of evolution in some meaniful way.

All of the physical mechanisms responsible for the 'information' changes in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

I don't know how many times we can repeat this.

All of the mechanisms involved in the theory of evolution have been directly observed. If they violate the 2nd law, then the second law is wrong.

Do you think that there is some physical mechanism used in the theory of evolution that has not been observed?

Ok notto. Can we at least agree to disagree?

 

[notto]

Ok notto. Can we at least agree to disagree?

You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with physics textbooks and experimental data world wide.

But sure, feel free to disagree. Considering you came to this thread seeking to objectively learn about evolution (and supposedly actual science), it is strange that you want to disagree with a very basic and mainstream understanding of physics and the physical mechanisms behind evolution. This may be why you may feel that you are being criticized as a layman. When you as a layman suggest that you can subjectively disagree with a scientific consensus and physics in general, your ideas won't be looked on as valid because quite simply, they are not. Unless you can show objectively why you disagree and do so using proper terminology, mathematics, and units, then although you may voice disagreement, don't kid yourself that it is based on anything objective. You want something to be true so you object when shown it is false. That is not objective investigation, that is dogma.

 

[Sojourner<><]

You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with physics textbooks and experimental data world wide.

But sure, feel free to disagree. Considering you came to this thread seeking to objectively learn about evolution (and supposedly actual science), it is strange that you want to disagree with a very basic and mainstream understanding of physics and the physical mechanisms behind evolution. This may be why you may feel that you are being criticized as a layman. When you as a layman suggest that you can subjectively disagree with a scientific consensus and physics in general, your ideas won't be looked on as valid because quite simply, they are not. Unless you can show objectively why you disagree and do so using proper terminology, mathematics, and units, then although you may voice disagreement, don't kid yourself that it is based on anything objective. You want something to be true so you object when shown it is false. That is not objective investigation, that is dogma.

So if I disagree with you then I disagree with physics? Whatever dude....

Still to this point I have not stated that anything violates the second law. Nor have I taken a stand for or against TofE. The only thing I DO disagree with you about is the nature of information. I say information is a pattern. You seem to be saying that information is something else... I don't know what. All you have said is that it is conceptual not physical. Can we agree to disagree on that point?

 

[notto]

So if I disagree with you then I disagree with physics? Whatever dude....

Still to this point I have not stated that anything violates the second law. Nor have I taken a stand for or against TofE. The only thing I DO disagree with you about is the nature of information. I say information is a pattern. You seem to be saying that information is something else... I don't know what. All you have said is that it is conceptual not physical. Can we agree to disagree on that point?

If you try to apply the 2nd law to a non-physical thing then yes, you disagree with physics dude.

Can you provide a physical unit by which we can measure information? If it is not conception but is physical, then that should be no problem.

Not sure what this has to do with evolution. It would appear you have taken your own thread off topic. What does this have to do with evolution?

Since all of the mechanisms that have to do with evolution have been observed, why bother discussing the 2nd law since none of them violate it? Are you still interested in learning about the theory of evolution? If so, the first thing to do is clear up any bad information you have received in the past. For instance, suggesting that the 2nd law really has much to do with the discussion of the mechansims of evolution would be a waste of time. Why did you bring it up? I'm just curious as to where you got this bad nugget of information in the first place and why you seem so reluctant to let it go.

 

[shernren]

Ok, let's brush off all the dust and spittle and try again ...

If TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms, how is it possible that these mechanisms could have seemingly completely bypassed the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Ok, we're going to have to elaborate "TofE purports that organisms evolved from simpler to more complex forms." What TofE actually purports is:

1. Individuals are not reproduced as exact replicas, but with genetic differences.
2. The environment selects for some of these differences and selects against others, causing the population's genetic makeup to change.
3. Accumulation of change over time causes gross structural changes so that in time a daughter population emerges which is different enough so that it can no longer undergo genetic intermixing with the parent generation.
4. Typically, the daughter population is also able to expand into a new niche because of these changes. [You could say that it is "more advanced", but that depends on how you measure advancement.] But whether or not this happens,
5. Change continues to occur within the daughter generation as in step 1.

etc. etc.

Now, there might be any amount of reasons for this cycle of processes to be impossible, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics isn't one of them. None of these processes individually violate it, so how can the overall process violate it?

1. Reproduction doesn't violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Of course, I haven't personally verified this, but I have it on expert testimony (not least of which is the fact that I exist).
Neither does mutation and the carrying of errors by young.
2. Environmental selection for a given trait doesn't violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It's just a matter of some animals being able to reproduce more, and some less. No perpetual machine nonsense happening here.
3. Accumulation of change is nothing more than step 1, repeat a few thousand times. Let's say I have change A in me. My son inherits change A, and in turn has his own change B as well. His son, my grandson, might have three changes. And so on. Well, there might be any number of reasons this might not work, but physically speaking the 2LoT doesn't prevent me from giving birth to something different from me, or prevent my distant descendant from giving birth to something a whole lot different from me.
4. Again, no physical law prevents birds from taking over the sky or land plants from taking over the sea once they have evolved.

And there you go. Evolution, whatever else it can't handle, doesn't have a problem with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Why should it?

 

[[serious]]

ok, I'm seeing a common misconception on both sides here. Evolution does not say that organisms evolve into more complex organisms, it says that they evolve into different organisms. There is no directionality and organisms are as likely to become simpler as more complex. The vast magority of life on the earth is still unicellular.